Industrial Research and Standards Bill, 1961—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is unexpectedly engaged in the Dáil on his Estimate and has asked me to take the Second Stage of this Bill for him.

The Bill is the result of a review which I have had carried out with a view to ascertaining what changes were required in the legislation dealing with the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. The original legislation under which the Institute was established was enacted in 1946, and an amending Act was passed in 1954. As it is now fifteen years since the original Act was passed, it is not, perhaps, surprising that it has been found necessary to amend the existing legislation. This Bill is designed to overhaul the functions, powers and organisation of the Institute so as to enable it to function more effectively.

Perhaps, the most important change proposed in the Bill is that relating to the organisation of what might be described as the governing body of the Institute. Senators will be aware that the Institute's functions under the 1946 and 1954 Acts were discharged by several constituent organs, namely, the Industrial Research Committee, the Standards Committee, the Director and the Council. The Bill provides for the concentration of functions in the hands of a single entity in the form of a Board which is to be established. This simplification in the organisation of the Institute is designed to improve its efficiency. The Board will be responsible for the general government of the Institute and the administration of its affairs, and it will operate in much the same way as the Board of Directors of a company. It will be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and will consist of a maximum of nine members.

Senators will recall that it had been hoped to keep industry in close touch with the work of the Institute through the Council, which comprises in addition to the members of the Industrial Research Committee and of the Standards Committee, not more than fifty ordinary members, who are appointed for their special attainments in this sphere. In passing I should like to pay a tribute here to the members of the present and past Councils for the selfless service they have rendered. The rôle of the Council was a useful one in the formative years of the Institute, though the results achieved were, perhaps, more modest than we had hoped for. Under the new developments which are proposed there will no longer be a need for a Council, and, arrangements are being made to discontinue its functions. Instead, the new Board is being given authority to appoint such ad hoc Committees as it sees fit to assist and advise it in carrying out its functions. The revised arrangements now proposed should have the effect of introducing greater flexibility into the conduct of the Institute's affairs, of broadening the base of the Institute, and of giving it more latitude in determining the appropriate industrial and scientific contact which should be enlisted to help towards the solution of specific problems.

The functions of the reconstituted Institute will be, broadly, similar to those of the present Institute. It is proposed, however, to vest the Institute with authority, where the public interest so requires, to undertake or assist in the development or exploitation of inventions. It is felt that this would be a desirable extension of the existing powers of the Institute in relation to scientific research.

Under present legislation, the maximum annual grant from funds provided by the Oireachtas which may be made to the Institute for expenses of administration is £35,000. It is proposed to remove this limit, and to arrange that, each year, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, will propose in the Estimates, for approval by the Oireachtas of whatever amounts are required to meet the capital or current expenditure. With the expansion of industrial enterprise in this country, with the greater awareness which we may expect from industrialists of the necessity for a scientific approach to problems relating to production, we may anticipate an increase in the demands likely to be made on the services of the Institute in the future. Three new laboratories have recently been completed and handed over to the Institute. The removal of the statutory limit on the level of the annual State grant should ensure that the Institute will not be prevented by lack of funds from using the new laboratories to the best possible advantage.

This greater flexibility in regard to financial matters should I feel be accompanied by similar flexibility in regard to staffing arrangements. At present, the numbers, grades, remuneration and conditions of service of the staff are subject to the approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, given with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The new Bill is designed to remove this control, except for such posts in the Institute's service as are designated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce as posts of special responsibility. The change proposed will, it is hoped, make it easier for the Institute to recruit suitable personnel for the various posts in the organisation. The number of posts likely to be designated as special posts will be very few— perhaps one or two. The posts equivalent to Chief Scientific officer or chief administration officer may be ones which I will designate.

The connection between the Institute and industry which it was created to serve should be as intimate as possible. Towards this end, provision is made in the Bill whereby industrial firms and other bodies may become associated with the Institute on payment of an annual fee, in return for which they can become entitled to certain facilities from the Institute. The exact terms of the relationship which will thus be created between the Institute and the associated firms will be a matter to be worked out by the Institute.

In regard to standard marks, the Bill provides that certain functions, which are at present exercised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, are transferred to the Institute, and some other minor amendments which appear desirable in the light of experience, are also proposed. The most important change in this respect is that which empowers the Institute to grant a licence to use a standard mark. This is at present a function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think, however, that it is advisable that the Institute should continue to prepare specifications on the basis of a programme and priority schedules established by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The Bill also provides for the prescription by the Minister for Industry and Commerce of compulsory standards for certain commodities intended for sale. In recent years, public attention has been focussed on the fact that there is no power to prevent the sale to the public of articles which may constitute a hazard to life or health. The provision to which I have referred seeks to remedy this deficiency, and it is the intention normally to utilise the powers involved only for the protection of life and health. There is no intention to make compulsory the ordinary standard specifications which will be drawn up by the Institute.

The Bill makes other provisions in regard to finances, accounts, and audits, annual reports, Board procedure, offices and premises, and other matters, which are generally on the lines of those approved by the Oireachtas for other State sponsored bodies.

In regard to the general merits of the Bill, I feel that there will be general agreement with a measure which is designed to improve the working of such a key establishment as the Instistute for Industrial Research and Standards. This Bill will, I believe, have this effect. The day has long gone when Industry could afford to carry on from year to year with the same old processes and practices, and in every country it is increasingly recognised that scientific research is essential to any worthwhile development of resources in the industrial field. This is more than ever important for this country which has limited natural resources, and the additional handicap, so far as human resources are concerned, of a lack of tradition in industrial and managerial skills. For this reason, there is a very urgent need for industrial research to improve technical processes and techniques, to develop new processes and new products, to promote the use of substitutes and byproducts, and to eliminate waste.

This research is expensive, and the smaller type of industrial firm which we have in this country is often not in a position to provide the skilled staff and the laboratory equipment needed to conduct research with a view to establishing newer, more efficient and cheaper ways of making a better article. The Institute exists as a central organisation to provide these facilities for industry. It has, or will have, the skilled staff and the equipment to do the job. I should like to see a greater awareness among industrialists firstly of the need for scientific research and secondly, of the great advantages which they can achieve from utilising the services which the Institute provides for them. This Bill represents an effort at improving the organisation of the Institute and giving it more independence with a view to improving its working and making it a better servant of industry.

Mr. McGuire

This measure is a very acceptable one and one which I am sure we must all welcome. Quite clearly, it makes improvements in this Institute that could be of the greatest value to our industrial economy. The improvements, as the Minister has said, are the result of some 15 years' experience which the Institute has had, and now, as a result of that experience, this Bill makes the Institute more flexible both administratively and financially. The machinery has been cut down to a very much more manageable and workable size and should, therefore, be much more flexible and much more satisfactory on the financial side, instead of being rigidly bound by the grant of a fixed sum. There is provision also to provide whatever sum becomes necessary in the light of experience of the needs of the Institute.

We have now had some 40 years' experience in building up the industrial economy of the country. We are all interested in this industrial drive which is really the very lifeblood of our whole existence. Everyone, in fact, in the community is concerned to see that we have an efficient industrial economy, and it behoves our industrialists to realise the vital necessity of having our articles well made, well designed and above all, competitive in price.

On the other hand, it is most important that the trade unions and their worker members should co-operate not only in aiming at better things, but in achieving the highest standard products. The absence of standards was a fault inherent in the building up of the hurried industrial economy which we had to undertake for the past 40 years, because of the high protection barriers which had to be raised in order to shelter our infant industries which, at the beginning, were lacking in capital and the know-how we have now learned. I think we can say we are at the take-off period and are in a position to do bigger and better things, especially from the purely economic points of view of saturation on our home market and the necessity for exports to meet our balance of payments problem. We now have to look to outside markets in which our products must compete. There we can find no protection and we must meet the cold wind of competition from more experienced and, in some cases up to now, more highly skilled operators than we had here.

We are facing, probably in company with other countries, the advent of the Common Market in which our products must compete. We will be drawn into the Common Market inevitably, we think. It is probably a very good thing that we should be drawn in, and in that market we will have to produce such goods as will compete with the products of the whole of Europe. Recently I saw a statement made by Dr. Andrews of C.I.E. with which I heartily agree. I cannot remember the exact words but to paraphrase, he said: "It is not only good enough for us to produce our best; we must produce the best." Very often, our best is not at all good enough, and only the best will enable us to live in the modern world.

Up to now, the only competition our home industrialists met with was competition from the small amount of goods that infiltrated into our home market and with which they had to compete. They were very few and far between, and as a result of that lack of competition, a sort of complacency grew up, design was not improved sufficiently, and moreover quality was very often neglected, in the knowledge that the consumer had to take and like what he was presented with, because he had no alternative choice.

As I say, that position is changing and, therefore, this measure is very timely in that it is designed to continue this Institute. In Section 6, the ten or 12 functions of the Bill are enumerated. To sum them up, they are to undertake, encourage and foster scientific research and investigation with the object of achieving economical and efficient use of our resources, and the highest standard and quality. In a few words, that covers the functions of the Institute.

The Minister has said that the Bill repeals the 1946 and 1954 Acts. The organisation has been streamlined and its finances have been put on a broader basis. The unwieldy committee and council, numbering some 50 people, is now being replaced by a board of nine, including the chairman. The feature I welcome is the idea of ad hoc committees which can be set up to contact industry and industrialists at all required levels and all required times. That is a much better way of getting into contact with the industrialists and with those people who should look to this Institute for guidance and help.

One of the complaints in the past of such institutions, artistic as well as scientific, has been the difficulty of getting industrialists to take the advice and help which is often there for them to receive, even for nothing. I had experience of that myself in the Arts Council where we tried to take certain steps to help industrial design and so on. We found there was very little approach from people who should have approached us and accepted the free help and advice which was there for them. I trust this Institute will not wait to be asked. I hope it will take positive steps to see that their services are utilised even by unwilling patients.

I do not want to say very much on this Bill because I think the Bill speaks for itself. I welcome the scientific approach to the question of the improvement in standards of industrial production. No matter what scientific research we bring to bear upon our industrial production, it must be borne in mind that the human factor is the most important one in achieving success. Unless men's minds are made ready and willing to use and apply scientific knowledge to their everyday work, the good work of the Institute will be negatived.

Production has undoubtedly made some industrialists and some workers far too complacent and satisfied with their existing circumstances and far too unwilling to adopt new and more efficient methods of industrial activity, but, in fairness, it must be said, however, that there are many industrialists nowadays, in view of what has been impressed upon them by our Government and by the knowledge that the Common Market is something that is looming up in the near future, who are making every possible effort to increase their productivity, to make their goods competitive in both price and quality and who are prepared to meet whatever situation may arise in the future when they may no longer rely upon the protective tariffs and measures which have been sheltering them from competition by other countries.

I have already made a slight reference to the importance of workers on their side giving every help in the application of scientific means and methods to their factories and workshops. We can take heart from the things happening at the moment as between employers and the trade unions who are now making an effort to see what can be done about increasing productivity. The question of the introduction of scientific methods in our operations here is of primary importance. It is one in relation to which we can never get anywhere, unless the employers and the workers as well are willing to sit down together and work out some harmonious method which will enable them not only to agree to making use of these modern scientific methods of production but also to feel that they are getting a square deal and a fair share of the extra wealth and extra productivity created, never forgetting, of course, that they must not just merely divide the fruits of this improvement among themselves but that the rights of the community and the interests of the community must be borne in mind as well. If the happy result is secured whereby employers, workers and the community are all made to share in the benefits of productivity, I think we can look forward to a successful future for our industrial economy in this country. In that hope, I should like to welcome this Bill which makes a very big contribution to this scientific step forward which we would all like to see.

Professor Quinlan

I welcome the spirit of this Bill in that it shows that the Government and the country as a whole are becoming aware of the importance of scientific endeavour and scientific research which will enable us to hold our place in the modern world. The Bill is to be welcomed on that account but I am very sorry that such a major step as this was not preceded by a period of at least external investigation leading to the preparation of a White Paper on this whole question of industrial research and its co-ordination with other research in this country. We missed a valuable opportunity. The only conclusion that we must arrive at is that the scheme has been the result of an internal effort in the Department of Industry and Commerce.

That is not a good enough approach to modern scientific work because, good and all as the administrators in any State Department are, they cannot of themselves comprehend the problems that arise above all in coordinating and developing industrial research. I am not aware that there is within the Department any regular research section that could claim to have the competence to do this. I am sorry this opportunity was missed but even at this late stage, if we do some clear thinking on the co-ordination of research, we may be able to chart the way for this re-organisation of the Institute, because we must, first of all, be quite clear on the divisions of research.

There is at one end of the spectrum what I think most people here would call research, that is, solving some problem for industry, making tests or prescribing some standards of excellence and so on but that is only what one would call routine research. It is a type of research, of course, which those engaged in it should have done over and over again. There is nothing new in it; it is everyday routine work. It is just like calling in a medical man. In most cases, he is on routine work and he applies routine techniques, but the medical adviser has to know more than that. He has to be able to cope with the unusual.

Similarly in research work, you must be able to rise above the routine and come to the next level of research which is what one might call applied research. At all stages this presents a challenge because one is striving to do something that has not been done before—at least it has not been done in that particular way. To do that, you require a different type of scientist, a man who is abreast of what is happening in the modern scientific world. Over and above that, you have what is called pure science, where those interested in it are interested for the sake of science itself and for the sake of collecting knowledge, as, for instance, those scientists who first split the atom. They were interested only in exploring the mysteries of the atom; yet we see that in the course of the last three decades that has gone from the realm of pure research. Nobody thought it would lead anywhere, industrially or otherwise.

Today we find it the scientific work behind nuclear power, the atomic bomb and all the other tremendous applications of that one item. It is interesting to note that, when the scientists in the 1930 period were working on the splitting of the atom, the public took no interest in their work, but the public despised the chemists because they were the people who were responsible for developing poison gas. The people engaged in splitting the atom were regarded as harmless and doing something which could never have any real application. It shows how the levels all link up together. What has been pure research in this category provides the ideas behind the research in the following category.

The quicker we translate that applied research into products in our factories, the sooner we will beat our competitors to it. Competition in modern industrial development is really competition in taking applied research and making it into goods and services. Therefore, if we we are serious in research development, we must recognise the interdependence of these three branches. If you try to set up an institution which is solely devoted to routine research, you will find you have a fossil on your hands, one which after 10 years will be completely useless, as far as gaining firsts with applied research are concerned.

If we were to have all those three together, or even if we were to rule out pure research for the moment, we would, in effect, have to create what is called an institute of technology, or a large scientific department within the universities. That is the only way it could be organised.

Those branches must be in continuous inter-communication, passing ideas one from the other. Above all, there must be a continuous succession of new minds coming in to look at the problem. Those new minds are provided by the post-graduate students who work in research for four or five years to get their doctorates, working under established scientists. They are the motive power that draws forth the full potential of those established scientists. Consequently, you are forced into the system that involves having students as well. After three or four years, the students get their degrees. Perhaps the best may be retained on the staff and the others pass on, but you have the lifeblood in them. If we were to set up such an institution, we would have to face an expenditure which would be away beyond our resources. It would involve an expenditure of anything in the order of £1,000,000 a year. That would be a small expenditure for such an institution, which would have to be a university centre in itself.

Recently, I spent a month visiting the Californian Institute of Technology, which is the premier institution for that type of scientific work in the United States. Their annual budget is in the region of £3,000,000 a year. They have just completed an extension to their buildings at a cost of £7,000,000 a year. That is the type of money involved in providing a centre for both applied research and routine facilities. We cannot do that and therefore we must recognise at this very late stage the essential part that our existing scientific institutions must play in co-ordination with this new body, if it is to give the service which we hope it will give in our industrial development. That means we must harness the energies in the various departments in our universities. We must recognise that the institution will largely be an institution concerned with what is called routine research. Therefore, I appeal that all our energies should be harnessed.

There is a very effective way of harnessing them. It has been done in many countries. In England, it has been done through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research grants and in America, by means of various sponsored research. What sponsored research means is that you give the institution certain sums of money for certain general scientific investigation. For instance, it might be in the field of making better use of some of our natural products here. The grants are given to university departments where there are people who are acknowledged as having the capacity and drive and the willingness to undertake that work. They, in turn, employ many postgraduate students and even post-doctorate students to carry out the main research under the direction of the senior professor concerned. By that means, you can co-ordinate the efforts here of all our institutions. That would be to the benefit of the institution and the universities because those in applied research like to see the ultimate use that is made of their discoveries. On the other hand, those engaged in routine research cannot exist in a vacuum, without being closely linked to the other branch. I appeal that right from the start it should be clearly enunciated that the Government wish to see the maximum of co-ordination between the various scientific centres.

I think that at least 50 per cent. of the budget of this new body should be spent on sponsoring research. That would be something very new for this country but it is the modern and efficient way to do it. I think it is well that the Seanad and the Government should realise that in our universities here we have men of the highest international standards who are capable of holding a position in a university institution anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, our public relations, or should I say our public press from the universities, ignore the task of letting the people of the country know the achievements of our people and what they are doing.

For instance, I might mention that in one department very intimately connected with any applied research for industrial development, the Department of Chemistry, we succeeded less than 12 months ago in attracting back a young scientist from the United States after he had six years' experience there. We attracted him back at a quarter of the salary he could have secured in the United States. He came back for £2,000 a year—having been offered 25,000 dollars in the United States—and with no prospects of going higher here. He is back, and he was willing to come back. He is one of the many who are available in our university institutions.

Again, we have many young students abroad carrying out post-graduate studies in various university institutions. Only last week, I had the privilege of seeing one of our students head the engineering class in the California Institute of Technology. These are facts which are scarcely ever made known. We should have full confidence in our young scientists. Our scientific departments can play their part in the development of our resources, provided they are given adequate help and encouragement and provided above all, that there is co-ordination with the new body. I agree with what Deputy de Valera said on this topic during the Dáil debate. I wish to stress it far more and to stress again the importance of co-ordination in the sponsoring of research.

We come now to some other facets of the Bill. I am unhappy about the amount of ministerial control embodied in the Bill. We are in a unique position in this country in that we came so late to the control of our own affairs. Since 1922, we have been forced to do so much by means of State bodies and State boards that it can be said we probably have more State-controlled or State-sponsored industries than almost any other country in western Europe. There are historical and practical reasons for that. Yet, we should face up to the fact that wherever there is an opportunity of lessening State control, we should avail of it. Above all, that occurs in appointing the boards of these bodies. We cannot always expect that angels like the Minister, his predecessor or his successor, will be in charge. We must take precautions for the future and try to leave our State structure as invulnerable to absolute State control as we can. We can do that only by lessening State control everywhere it can reasonably be lessened.

Here we find that the whole board will be appointed by the Minister. I think that is very wrong. We are setting up a scientific institute and there are so many scientific bodies in the country that it should be quite feasible to have the majority of the board appointed directly by those bodies. I have in mind that the four university centres should contribute at least two, maybe three or four members. I should prefer three because I would like to get a system of rotation. I do not like to see institutions sending back the same member time and again. It would be possible to have rotation, if there were three members. There are four university centres involved and the rotation itself would ensure there would be a change every nine years, and probably more often.

We also have the Institute of Civil Engineers of Ireland. Engineers are very much concerned with industrial development and make a large contribution to it. It is only right and proper that pro tem the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers should be ex officio a member of the board. We have also the Institute of Chemists. We recognise the important part chemists play in our industrial development. The President of that Institute or, if necessary, a nominee of that body, could fill a similar role. There is also the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. That body might legitimately feel they should have an ex officio representative. There are probably one or two others. That would probably bring the representation from those sources to six and after that, the Minister could nominate, say, a minority of three or four. That would be a far healthier board and it would command much more confidence.

Again, I am rather worried about the power the Minister is taking to designate special posts as posts that cannot be filled without his consent. I understand that the intention is merely to keep salary control on those posts so that by controlling the salaries at the top, they will not be allowed to get out of step with corresponding grades in other services. If we are concerned about industrial research, we must get the top men, and we must pay them salaries that are out of line with the salaries paid to administrators. We must recognise the fact that today science commands a far higher salary than administration or at least it is tending that way and will tend still further in that direction in the future.

I believe that to designate posts solely for the purpose of controlling salaries is a very retrograde step. We must have confidence in the board itself that it will husband its resources and will not pay more than it has to. In any case, the board must present its budget to the Minister to get an allotment for the following year. Surely the salaries will be shown in that budget, and the Minister will have an opportunity there to object, if he thinks the board has been extravagant.

The section says that a member shall be appointed "by reason of his attainments in scientific research". That is a wonderful phrase but what does it mean? It means absolutely nothing until you sit down and define what "attainments in scientific research" are. What does it mean? Does it mean a man who has had post-graduate training or does it mean that he has to have a published work in the research field? I think that any scientific interpretation of those words would hold that is so.

If that is the case, the Minister's choice is narrowed down to the choosing of university members alone. I do not think it would be right to narrow it down so far. The phrase in relation to "attainments in scientific research" is ridiculous. It is ridiculous from the point of view of judging those attainments. Again, while I pay the highest tribute to the officers of the Minister's Department, I must challenge any suggestion that there is anybody in the Department engaged in scientific research. I doubt if there is anybody in the Department who has done scientific research. Consequently, how can you judge something that you have not done or been trained in?

That is the dilemma of the administrator trying to step outside his field and make decisions on something away beyond his competence. In normal circumstances, such an administrator will have the assistance of scientific people to advise him. I am not aware that such a situation exists in the Department and if it did exist, we should quickly transfer it to this Institute.

Again, there is this fact. Fees are paid to members of the board for services rendered to the board. That is a rather dangerous provision. It is dangerous in the sense that it makes it rather tempting for members to hang on to the board. Consequently, it encourages the approach of exercising a little political pressure to ensure that you are renominated after your three year period. I would prefer to see in respect of members of the board who played an active part in it and who were recognised as leaders in research that quite considerable grants be made available to such a person's department and graduate students to carry on. That would be a far better and more beneficial use of the money involved. That also would be a privilege which would not end when the member ceased to be a member of the board, because if his research work was good enough, the research sponsorship department would carry on as before. Such a temptation of monetary rewards like this is rather doubtful.

Let me now refer to Section 11 of the Bill which is totally repugnant to the autonomy of any research institute. I ought not to use the word "autonomy" in relation to this board because there is so much Ministerial control in it that it is only the shadow of autonomy but even that shadow is considerably worsened by Section 11 whereby the Minister may remove a member from office simply by notification in writing giving the reasons which the Minister considers sufficient. When you appoint for a three-year period, the necessity for this obnoxious clause is hard to see. Again, who is to advise the Minister that a member of the board is not doing his duty? It would be quite possible to say that the only way he would probably fail would be by not attending. It would be possible to stipulate that a member would cease to be a member of the board, if he were absent from 50 per cent. of the meetings in any one year. That would be a reasonable and automatic provision but I do not like this.

When we come to the composition of the board, I might mention the parallel with the Agricultural Institute where the majority of the members are appointed by the organisation concerned. I do not see why there should be such a radical difference between a board set up to do research in agriculture and a board set up to do industrial research and why there should be far more State control in respect of one than the other.

Again, we have this obnoxious Section 13 which goes on to brand members of this House and the other House as undesirable persons. It has been modified in its passage through the Dáil to the extent that at least by becoming a candidate for the House, you do not cease to be a member of the board but that is not enough. If a man is entitled to membership of the board, then membership of any House should be no barrier to him.

Let us have a look at the parallel provided in regard to another institute we have in this country—the Institute for Advanced Studies in Merrion Square. There is no such provision in respect of that board. I have been a member for at least five years and no cognisance has been taken of the fact. In any case, I think we should use every effort to get rid of those outmoded restrictions. I welcome that part of Section 13 of the Bill which refers to either an officer or a servant of the board becoming a member of either House of the Oireachtas. He can get leave of absence.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think the Senator is going into a shade too much detail on Second Reading.

Professor Quinlan

I am just discussing the general principle involved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We have got the general principle.

Professor Quinlan

With your leave, I will pass on. I should like to remark, however, that it does not go as far as they go in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, any official or any member of any body, public or private, can get leave of absence from his post and the difference in salary, if it exists, between his allowance as a Deputy or Senator and his pay in his post must be made up. Consequently, it is established that by answering the call of public service, any public servant or company servant will not lose. I think that so long as Section 13 stands as it is, we need have no fear that it will ever be used because I cannot see any higher official of this board voluntarily accepting even £1,000 a year or any other allowance in the Dáil, of which £500 is regarded as expenses—in other words, dropping his income to £10 a week in order to serve. Certainly his family would suffer very severely.

Many of the other points I want to raise can be better raised on Committee Stage when I hope to put down a number of amendments. I have endeavoured to speak as one who has some connection with research work and as one who has done such and, therefore, appreciates some of the difficulties. I appeal to the Minister to stress the co-ordination between the universities and this new body, if it is to do the work we hope it will do.

Miss Davidson

I should like to give a very warm welcome to the Bill because it seeks to widen and strengthen the working of what I consider a most valuable body, the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards. If this Institute is enabled to function even more effectively than it has been doing it can be of the greatest possible value to manufacturers and consumers alike. If its functions are properly availed of, it can do a very great deal to enhance the reputation of Irish manufactured goods and by so doing, increase the demand for them on both the home and export markets.

The proposals to concentrate the functions of the Institute in a board would appear to make for greater efficiency and achieve better results from the activities of the Institute. I am glad to see that the Bill gives power to the Institute to make compulsory standards for articles or substances which constitute hazards to life and health and I hope this will be enforced in the firmest possible way. I do not know whether the Institute will deal only with articles and substances manufactured here but in regard to health hazards, I would like the Minister to direct their attention to the position in relation to cosmetics, most of which are imported and some of which have proved harmful to eyes and skin, but which are often marked as being highly beneficial in their effects. This may be considered a small matter but when we remember that such things can be, and are, purchased by mere school children, there should be some safeguard where there is the slightest risk of skin or eye irritation.

On this point, it might be possible, although I am not sure if it would come under this Bill, to prevent cosmetic firms from extracting very considerable amounts of money by absurd claims for their products. In the United States of America, there are Federal Committees whose function it is to compel advertisers to refrain from making false claims for their products, including cosmetics, cigarettes, medical goods, etc. These committees publish in the Press the names of the manufacturers and the names of the offending articles. From time to time, there appear in the American Press notices which state that such-and-such a firm have been notified to refrain from claiming that their materials are non-shrink, colour-fast, and in one case I recall that furs which were being advertised were rabbit fur and not musquash, as was stated.

Many of us are "Buy Irish" minded and many of us have been humiliated to hear visitors being recommended to take non-Irish goods, with the recommendation that they are much better. Unfortunately, this is sometimes true and it is here that the Institute can be of very great value by indicating to the public, by means of a distinctive mark, that the goods offered have been passed by the Institute and comply with certain stated standards of design and material. I know there is an Irish standard mark but as far as I know, it is not in very wide use. It is used only in a very limited way and the mark is not very attractive. I should like to see a much more attractive design.

I have seen garments, particularly those for children and women which are sometimes made of good material but are so badly designed, so badly sewn with inferior thread that they parted into the original cut-out pieces after one wearing and one wash. On the other hand, I have seen material sold as "all wool Irish tweed", and I have even seen it used in school uniforms. While it can truthfully be described as all-wool, such a description can only injure the Irish tweed trade because it is not Irish tweed as we know it. This so called Irish tweed is made of the poorest shoddy, attractively dyed. There is a great need to fix a standard which will guide the uninitiated citizen, or our tourists, to understand that Irish tweed is manufactured from live, springy wool and not from rewoven wool waste which is known as shoddy. This standard should apply to all material and articles being sold as wool.

A costly item in the budget of the average household is the school uniform. If standards were fixed for both the material and the making, much expense would be eliminated. I have seen expensive school uniforms that simply faded away after a term's wear. I have seen uniforms so badly made that they had to be entirely remade by the manufacturer before they could be worn—all adding, of course, to the cost of production and to the cost to the parents. If such garments bore the mark of the Standards Institute, parents could buy with confidence, knowing that the price did not include the charge for a possible remaking afterwards. If the garment eventually proved unsatisfactory, the purchaser would know where to go to seek redress because of its having carried the standard label.

I can see the difficulty of trying to compel manufacturers to produce all their goods up to a specified standard but if the public came to understand the significance of the mark, they would soon learn to discriminate. Therefore, I should like the Minister to recommend to the Institute the production of a distinctive, attractive emblem or mark to indicate that the article has been passed by the Institute, and also that wide publicity be given to this purchaser's safety mark. Press publicity is most essential to ensure success in this matter. Slogans should be drawn up such as "Buy wisely— look for this mark..." and a clear picture given of the mark of the Standards Institute, a design which would be as easily recognised and described as the British mark. The public would soon learn to look for the mark, with the result that, by public demand, all firms would be forced to apply to have their goods tested and approved so that they might bear the mark.

It will be recalled how, during the Emergency period, when most goods were rationed and clothing, etc., had to last for long periods, the public came to seek out these garments which bore the "utility" label because it indicated that the garment was of good quality, having passed certain tests, and was within a certain stated price range. This mark was very simple and easily recognisable. If the public are made aware that a particular mark indicates a certain guarantee, they will look for it and the shoddy, get-rich-quick manufacturer will be well and truly on the way out. I would stress, however, that the success of the standard mark depends on its being an outstanding one, made familiar to everyone through press and other publicity.

There are many other forms of manufactures that would benefit from the use of the standard label but it would take too much time to mention them all. I should like, however, to refer to the manufacture of furniture. Much poor quality furniture is being manufactured here today and the application of the standards mark would be a useful guide, particularly to inexperienced buyers, such as young people setting up homes. They could be saved much expense if they were helped to sort out the good from the bad that will have to be scrapped after a short time in use.

In regard to articles made of wood, the standard mark should indicate that the materials used have been treated against the ravages of woodworm and furniture beetle, very destructive pests that have increased greatly in recent years. These pests could ruin the structure of the house in which such furniture is placed.

In the matter of upholstery, mattresses and such like, the standard mark should indicate that the materials used have been sterilised and that they conform to certain standards of hygiene as well as to certain standards of workmanship. In this country, where we are constantly seeking to improve our exports, I cannot think of anything more valuable to manufacturers, old and new, than an Institute of this kind. We should be generous in our financial support of its work and should do everything in our power to give publicity to its work and its possibilities.

It is true to say that many people do not know of the existence of the Institute of Research and Standards. That is something that must be put right. Without publicity for its work, the value of the organisation is greatly lessened. A publicity campaign should be initiated as soon as the Bill is passed. I am glad to give the Bill the fullest support.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I understand it was arranged that the House would take the Report Stage of the Courts of Justice and Court Officers (Superannuation) Bill, 1961, at 5.30 p.m.

Professor Stanford

Might I inquire is it intended to adjourn for tea and then resume the debate on the Second Stage of the Industrial Research and Standards Bill, 1961?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There will be a tea interval until 8 o'clock and then we will resume on this Bill.

Debate adjourned.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 14 Jun 1961