This amendment is designed to meet a point made by Senator Alexis FitzGerald when he pointed out that the subsection as it stood allowed the Minister to make an order prescribing conditions in relation only to the assigment of functions mentioned in section 5, subsection (2). I agreed at the Committee Stage to examine the point raised by Senator Alexis FitzGerald and section 4 subsection (2) has been amended, as suggested, with a view to entitling me to prescribe conditions for the board under the subsection.
Nuclear Energy (An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh) Bill, 1971: Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 4, before "do" to insert ", subject to compliance with such conditions as the Minister may prescribe,".
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the point made on the Committee Stage. There is just one minor point I should like to raise more in the line of correctly interpreting the effect of the amendment than anything else. I take it that the fact that the amendment reads "such conditions as the Minister may prescribe" means that it is not necessary to add the words "if any" in this particular case. I should like to be reassured that the absence of the prescription of any conditions by the Minister would not invalidate the actions of the board. Just with this one very minor reservation I welcome the amendment.
The "may" is permissive. It is open either way.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 9, after "Government" to insert "or, with the consent of the Minister, any other person or group of persons engaged in research in nuclear science".
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 could be discussed together; they are all on a point raised by Senator Dooge.
Is it agreed?
Before we agree to that I might say that I am not entirely happy about the form of amendment No. 2 and might wish to move an amendment to it. As they are cognate but do not completely go together, it might be advisable to separate amendment No. 2.
If the Senator wishes it that way. Senator Dooge inquired on the Committee Stage whether it was intended to restrict advice in regard to reactors for training and research purposes to advice tendered to the Government. This was the net point raised by the Senator and the subsection could be construed as indicating that the board could not advise anybody else on the acquisition of nuclear reactors. It was intended that the general powers available to the board under section 4 would enable them to give advice to anybody under any Minister on matters such as the acquisition of training reactors. What I have in mind here in these amendments —I think they are cognate although we can discuss them separately—is to put the issue beyond doubt. In order to put it beyond doubt, we are amending the subsection to ensure that advice by the Nuclear Energy Board will be available to any group interested in nuclear science as well as the Government. This is the purpose of them.
Might I say that I agree that the amendment as such is acceptable but I indicated I might wish to amend it on a minor point. Accordingly, I would ask leave of the House to recommit this particular amendment so that the discussion would not be curbed.
That is amendment No. 2.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 2.
I would say once again I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the point that was made here and I think that amendment No. 2 is a substantial improvement on the Bill as it stands. However, there is one point in regard to it that I should like to raise. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 5 reads:
to advise the Government on the acquisition of nuclear reactors for training or research purposes and, in the event of the acquisition by the Government of such reactors, on all aspects of their location, installation, operation and supervision.
I want to emphasise that the section here reads: "for training or research purposes". However, when we go on to look at the amendment, the amendment allows the board to advise the Government or, with the consent of the Minister, any other person or group of persons engaged in research in nuclear science. I am just a little bit worried about the failure to repeat "training or research" in the amendment. It might well be that there would be some group who were using the reactor for training purposes and were not using it for research in the strict meaning of the word. I should have thought that it might have been safer to give the wider scope here and allow the nuclear energy board to advise persons who would be engaged, perhaps at one particular time only, in the limited field of training without, at that time, any research connotation.
Will we do it now?
Yes.
It is a very important point. I agree with the Senator.
I think so. There might be the difficulty that the board would be excluded from advising someone whom they should advise.
The Senator is suggesting that persons engaged in training——
Training or research.
Amendment to Government amendment No. 1:
In line 3 that the words "training or" be inserted after "in" and before "research".
It was to this particular amendment I directed my attention. I am not sure if the point arises again.
The proposal is that this amendment be amended by the addition of the words "training or" before the word "research" in line 3. Is that agreed?
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Agreed. I have a further point which is of the same nature but perhaps more minor and that is whether the words "nuclear science" might not be interpreted narrowly so as to exclude nuclear engineering. We might have a case where a body was engaged either in training or research in nuclear engineering and someone might make the distinction between nuclear science or nuclear engineering. It might be sufficient if the Minister consulted the draftsman on that point before the Bill goes to the Dáil.
Section 4 (1) makes it clear. It states:
to advise the Government, the Minister and any other Minister of State on nuclear energy and matters connected therewith.
I would interpret science as being a global term.
There are differences in meaning in law between science and technology. It is sufficient if the matter is examined before the Bill goes to the Dáil so long as the Minister has been made aware of the point.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, reported and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are cognate. Is it agreed that they may be taken together?
Also amendment No. 4.
Yes.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 10, after "reactors" to insert "or radioactive devices".
Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are designed to meet points made by Senator Dooge on Committee Stage. In particular, Senator Dooge was very keen on having more definitive definitions in regard to reactors. He was concerned to have radioactive devices added to pin the matter down properly. This is the purpose of amendments Nos. 3 and 5. Amendment No. 4 deletes "by the Government". This is designed to meet the point we have just been discussing to include bodies other than the Government.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting both these points. I am very much happier that the Bill should cover radioactive devices so that sub critical reactors should be covered. While these things are not as potentially hazardous as the critical reactor, nevertheless they are not things to be used in the same way as ordinary equipment. It is very desirable that they should come within the whole scope of the Bill.
Amendment No. 4 is largely concerned with the question of acquisition of reactors by other persons and I think it really reflects the intention of the Bill. The Bill was originally inadvertently drafted to indicate that the Government would be the only body to acquire reactors.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 3, line 11, to delete "by the Government."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 3, line 12, after "reactors" to insert "or devices".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9 are cognate and if the House agrees they will be taken together.
That is agreed.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 3, line 14, to delete "if so requested".
These three amendments are designed to meet points made by Senator Sheldon and Senator FitzGerald on Committee Stage. Senator Sheldon inquired if the fact that the board could offer advice to the Government and to the Minister on the installation of nuclear reactors only on request and could prepare safety codes only when requested to do so by a Minister of State limited the general advisory functions of the board.
Senator FitzGerald referred to the fact that under section 5 (1) (e) the board could advise on representation on international bodies only at the request of the Minister for External Affairs. On Committee Stage I said that I regarded section 4 as the superseding section. At that stage I did not think it was necessary but, on looking into the matter, I decided that the points made were valid and that there was a doubt as the section stood. However, in order to remove any doubt I am deleting "if so requested".
Again, we are grateful to the Minister for meeting these points. It does, as he says, remove any possible legal doubt but it also does something more. It places beyond doubt that it is the wish of the Minister, as he expressed on Committee Stage, and it is the wish of the House, that a body such as this should not only have a formal function to answer the questions that a Minister might ask, to advise on topics that the Minister might think important but rather in the case of such a board they should offer advice as often as they thought fit.
When we enter into areas such as nuclear power—and it is only one example of the complex problems which impinge on Government policy at the present day—it is necessary that such bodies be given complete freedom in the tendering of advice. On these complex matters there could be many times it would be inappropriate to wait for the Minister to have to seek advice because it is the essence of the problems involved that what is to be done is not obvious to the layman or the Minister. It is not merely for such bodies to give the answers but it is for them also to pose the problems and list the problems that must be solved.
In many instances, other than nuclear power, the same thing will happen in the years ahead. We in the Oireachtas will have to adjust ourselves to a situation in which especially skilled bodies will be placed in the position that they will advise freely of their own volition rather than merely do so on request.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 3, line 18, to delete ",if so requested by a Minister of State,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 8, 15, 31 and 32 are related. Is it agreed that they may be taken together?
Agreed.
And 16 and 17.
The Minister wishes to add amendments Nos. 16 and 17. That will be amendments Nos. 8, 15, 16, 17, 31 and 32.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 3, to delete lines 22 to 25 and substitute "international bodies dealing with nuclear energy,".
These amendments all cover a very important aspect of comment by the Seanad on both Second Stage and Committee Stage, so I should like to explain them in some detail, with your permission, Sir.
These amendments are concerned with the basic question as to the control of various radioactive substances raised by a number of Senators. The opinion was expressed that opportunity should be taken here to centralise all these functions now vesting in various Ministers and that they should vest in the proposed Nuclear Energy Board. The view was expressed that the board would be in a much better position to exercise its function of control than in the proposed situation whereby the board, as the Bill stands, in regard to radioactive substances could only act at the request of or within limitations placed by different Ministers.
To be more precise about the matter, at present, control over radioactive substances, irradiating apparatus and the safe disposal of radioactive waste, is vested in the Minister for Health under section 59 subsection (4) of the Health Act, 1953. Under this section the Minister for Health may make regulations for the prevention of danger to health of persons using radioactive substances or irradiating apparatus and also for ensuring the safe disposal of radioactive waste products.
As regards the Minister for Labour, under section 71 of the Factories Act, 1955, he has powers of control over any manufacture of machinery, plant, process or anything of that kind used in factories which is of such a nature as to cause risk or bodily injury. The Minister for Labour, under that section, must consult the Minister for Health before making regulations to meet particular cases. Therefore, there is a certain duality of control, as it were, between the Minister for Health and the Minister for Labour in regard to safety. The point was made here that the creation of a Nuclear Energy Board, with similar powers in regard to safety measures and dealing with radioactive substances, will only add to the complexity of the whole situation. The view expressed here was why not centralise it within the board?
The intention of the Bill was to leave the position open so that the board when set up—I said this on both Second Stage and Committee Stage— could initiate the appropriate discussions with the Departments concerned in order to tidy up and resolve any problems. However, I have had a look at this since the Committee Stage and the provisions incorporated in the amendments are designed to meet the problem to some extent. Originally, it was intended that the board could compile a safety code only when asked to do so by the Minister concerned— that is as the draft stands—and could act as agent for ensuring compliance with any such code again only at the request of the Minister.
As the Seanad will notice from amendment No. 7, it is now proposed that the board will have the function of preparing safety codes without reference to any Minister. Furthermore, the power to act as agent to ensure compliance with safety codes or regulations made by statutory order is being transferred to subsection (2) of section 5. That is to the area where I, as Minister, may from time to time by order, after consultation with other Ministers, assign functions to the board. Therefore, the power to act as agent is being brought within my area and from me to the board. The subsection has been further strengthened to ensure that the board will have full power to carry out any function so assigned.
In addition, under amendments Nos. 31 and 32, the relevant sections of both the Health Act and the Factories Act are being amended to require direct consultation by the Ministers for Health and Labour with the Nuclear Energy Board in the preparation and implementation of the regulations under these Acts dealing with radio-activity. It is also provided that both Ministers can designate officers of the Nuclear Energy Board as inspectors under the Health Acts and the Factories Act. This again tightens the situation.
All of these points are designed to meet views expressed here in the Seanad. However, as I said on both Second Stage and Committee Stage, it is impossible just now, before the board has been set up and before expert staff has been recruited, to arrive at final, binding decisions in regard to the exact allocation of responsibilities under the three Acts. However, I feel the amendments go some of the way to meet the points of view expressed here in the Seanad.
We are seeking in these amendments to ensure full consultation between the three parties involved—the Nuclear Energy Board, the Department of Labour and the Department of Health. Appropriate arrangements can be worked out for assignment of functions to the best and most suitable staff available for the implementation of the responsibilities allocated and with the minimum duplication.
We also propose, under amendment No. 31, to limit the functions of the Minister for Health, under section 59, sub-section (4) of the Health Act, to medical radioactive substances and medical irradiating apparatus. That is, again, a refined definition of the Department of Health's particular responsibility. Therefore, by this amendment we will remove from the Minister for Health responsibility for the safe disposal of radioactive waste products whether resulting from medical uses or otherwise. This will come under the Nuclear Energy Board. In fact, the surrendered functions will then be vested in the Minister for Transport and Power, who can assign them to the board.
I have little doubt that at a later stage the Minister for Health will be equally anxious to assign responsibilities for other areas of control, particularly those dealing with radioactive substances, to the new board as soon as practicable. I envisage eventually a total centralisation under the board, and these amendments are designed to ensure that.
No doubt we can work out similar arrangements with the Minister for Labour in regard to protecting the health of factory workers from excessive radiation. I understand from the Minister for Labour that he is in a position to make regulations in the very near future along these lines. He has already made arrangements for the training of a number of inspectors in the use of the necessary testing and monitoring equipment in order to implement the proposed regulations. Therefore, the Minister for Labour will shortly be in a position to exercise a fair measure of control over dangerous emissions from radioactive substances. I think it is proper to leave it in that area for the moment. It will be some time before the Nuclear Energy Board will be organised to the extent necessary to take over these controls.
We are taking the most practical steps here in these amendments to meet the points of view expressed by Senators. We are not yet in a position to provide the total centralised control on all radiation matters. Under the aegis of the Nuclear Energy Board this is the desirable objective, but in particular, as I have stated, the Department of Labour are already taking steps to deal with it on the safety aspect. Inspectors will be there and the mechanism will be established. We are proposing in these amendments to provide the mechanism whereby, when the board is established, staffed and financed, it will be able to absorb these functions into a centralised Nuclear Energy Board. For the time being, this is not practicable but we are providing the mechanism here in the amendments to enable that to be done when the time is right.
I feel sure that the Seanad will welcome the extent to which the Minister has in this group of amendments met the views which were expressed. It is a point on which there was considerable debate both on Second Stage and Committee Stage. It is a point on which it is very hard at any particular point in time to be quite clear as to what the best arrangements should be. While the amendments do not go the full way towards meeting the views expressed by myself and by other Senators—indeed we did not always agree on what we were pressing on the Minister—nevertheless, what is here goes a good deal of the way. It introduces a degree of flexibility. It introduces a further degree of consultation which makes these amendments a distinct improvement on the Bill as introduced.
The Minister, in recommending the Bill on Second Stage, mentioned that it was probable he would have to come back with amending legislation in a few years time. The situation brought about by the Bill, as amended, would enable advice to be obtained not only from the Nuclear Energy Board but also from the other Departments which would be helpful in this regard. I feel that in the situation we now face it is, perhaps, desirable from some points of view that the Department of Health and the Department of Labour should not be at this stage completely excluded from the picture.
If we regard this measure as being a Bill in relation to which an amending Bill is likely to follow it would be as well if a body as important as the Department should have an interest in this matter at least until a final solution is found in the amending legislation. As far as one can judge in the time available to study them these amendments will go a good distance towards meeting what is proposed and they should do the job they intend to do. I certainly welcome the amendments and hope that the intention of these amendments—to promote cooperation between the ministries involved—will be successful in this respect.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 3, line 30, to delete ", if requested,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 18, 20 and 23 are cognate and I suggest that they be taken together.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 3, line 31, to delete "External Affairs" and substitute "Foreign Affairs".
These amendments are designed to meet the situation that has arisen by reason of the Government order made two days ago to change the "Minister for External Affairs" to the "Minister for Foreign Affairs".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 3, line 41, to delete "External Affairs" and substitute "Foreign Affairs".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are related and the House might agree to take them together.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 3, line 43, to delete "the responsibility for" and substitute "the making of arrangements to ensure".
On Committee Stage Senator Dooge requested the use of some word other than "responsibility". He took objection to it and I take his point. He expressed the view that in making the board responsible for the safe custody of fissile fuel, the operation of nuclear power reactors and nuclear training reactors, the responsibility of the operator of a reactor for accidents involving international third party liability be diminished. He took this view and I think "arrangements" meets the point made. This amendment is to meet that point.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting this particular point. It is probably safer, I think, to draft it in the way in which it is drafted here. One trusts that removal of the word "responsibility" from this section will not make the Nuclear Energy Board act in an irresponsible manner in this regard.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 3, line 46, to delete "the responsibility for" and substitute "the making of arrangements to ensure".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 3, to delete lines 50 to 52 and substitute the following:
(d) the making of arrangements to ensure the safe operation of nuclear training reactors and radioactive devices,.
That really deals with another point.
They are being discussed together.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 3, between lines 52 and 53, to insert the following new paragraph:
(e) the making of arrangements to ensure compliance with any safety codes established or regulations made (whether under this Act, the Health Act, 1953, or the Factories Act, 1955) relating to fissile fuel, radioactive substances or devices or irradiating apparatus,.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 3, line 53 to delete "the functions" and substitute "any function".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 3, lines 54 and 55, to delete "paragraph (b)" and substitute "this subsection".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 4, line 3, to delete "External Affairs" and substitute "Foreign Affairs".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 are cognate and the Chair suggests that they be taken together.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 4, line 3, after "External Affairs" to insert "Education".
These amendments are designed to meet the point expressed by Senator Dooge that the Minister for Education has been very importantly involved in the training and research with regard to nuclear energy and should be included as a relevant Minister to be consulted when functions are being assigned. I have added the Minister for Education, as suggested by Senator Dooge.
I am glad that the Minister could meet this point. As I indicated on Committee Stage, I was reluctant to add to the long list of consultations here. I feel the Nuclear Energy Board will probably need a committee on consultation because of all the duties we are placing on them. I feel that the Minister for Education will have a function which will impinge on that of the Nuclear Energy Board and it is quite proper for him to be included.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 4, line 6, to delete "External Affairs" and substitute "Foreign Affairs".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 4, line 6, after "External Affairs" to insert "Education".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 4, line 10, after "Health" to insert "Education".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 4, line 10, to delete "External Affairs" and substitute "Foreign Affairs".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 4, to delete lines 13 to 15 and substitute the following:
"exportation or other disposal of fissile fuel, or of such other radioactive substances or devices, or irradiating apparatus, including radio-active waste products, as may be specified in the order, and any such order shall have regard to varying levels of radioactivity and to the extent to which such substance, device or apparatus is, in his opinion, a danger to the life or health of a person coming into contact therewith."
Senator Dooge raised the point on Committee Stage as to whether the definition of radioactive substances in section 1 might not be too broad and might include radioactive substances which it would not be necessary to control. It has not been possible to amend the definition of radioactive substances to meet the point made by Senator Dooge. We have amended section 6 to make it obligatory on the Minister to take account of the level of radioactivity in the substance, device or apparatus the control of which may be contemplated by the Minister or the board as his agent. I think that goes some of the way towards meeting the point made by Senator Dooge.
Again, I must say I am grateful to the Minister. I might say that the amendment goes rather further than I would have gone myself. The Minister has drafted this amendment indicating that in every order the Minister "shall have regard". I might well have been content with "may" in this connection. On reading the amendment and thinking it over, it is, perhaps, better that it should be "shall" so that the point will never be forgotten when an order is drafted and it may, quite simply, fix the level at a zero level in the making of the order, if necessary. I am in agreement with this.
There is one other small point in regard to the amendment, as drafted. It is the point that, once one decides on a level then it becomes a matter of fixing that particular level by order. The amendment reads that the level to be fixed is one which "in his opinion" is safe. I take it that this means the opinion of the Minister. Since we are now on Report Stage I think it would be sufficient if I raised this particular point and asked the Minister, if he is unable to give a clear interpretation of it at the moment, that he would look at it before the Bill goes to Dáil Éireann. I feel that because the Minister, under section 6, may wish to make an order which would specify a certain limit but might want to introduce some flexibility in regard to that limit which might be left to the discretion of the Nuclear Energy Board. On the other hand, it might be thought preferable to keep the wording as it is, so that the Minister would make a more complex order or make orders more frequently in this connection. The Minister will, almost certainly, in making an order specifying a level of radio-activity for a particular substance or in regard to a particular device or apparatus, be acting under the advice of the Nuclear Energy Board. Since the Minister will be acting on their advice, he may wish to introduce some degree of flexibility within fixed limits in regard to these orders, specifying that the level must be one which, in the opinion of the Minister, would rule out any such flexibility in an order.
The point being made by Senator Dooge is covered by section 5. We empower the board to advise the Minister. This is covered in subsection (5) (b) and (c), in particular. Subsection (1) (a), (b), (c) (d) and (e) of section 5 would provide the arrangements whereby the board will, in fact be the body who will influence the opinion of the Minister.
If I perhaps could be permitted a few sentences, I am quite happy about the ability of the board to advise. I am concerned that the Minister might, perhaps, be restricting the nature of the order which he could make and be binding himself to make an inflexible type of order under the wording of the amendment. I would be quite content if the matter were looked at in this light between now and the passage of the Bill through the Dáil.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25.
In page 4, lines 53 and 54, to delete "and the resignation shall take effect on receipt of the letter".
Senator Dooge and, I think, Senator O'Higgins, queried the meaning of the phrase "receipt of the letter" which is in the draft as it now stands. The phrase could be interpreted as meaning when the letter of resignation was received in the Department and it thereby limited the Minister's opportunity to withdraw the resignation. Senator Dooge suggested that, under the section as drafted, a member intimating resignation at a later date would find the resignation effective, and the Minister would be precluded from possibly retaining an excellent person by reason of the tightly worded drafting as it now stands. I accept the point of view that the section as drafted is too tightly drawn and that is why I propose the amendment to delete "and the resignation shall take effect on receipt of the letter".
I feel the section is improved by the deletion of these particular words. It was indicated on Committee Stage that a person on resigning might well be resigning because of a very sharp difference of policy. It would be quite inappropriate that, at the time the letter is stamped in the registry of the Department of Transport and Power, such a resignation would take effect. On a quick reading it appears that by the deletion of these words, it is necessary for the resignation to reach the Minister's desk and he will be aware of the resignation, and the reasons for it, before it can take effect.
I should like to ask the Minister, having deleted these words, when does the resignation take effect? We have deleted the words which ensured that it took effect at what we thought was an inappropriate time. What is the position in regard to the time when the resignation becomes effective?
The Senator has been told this?
Having removed an undesirable designation of time, it might be necessary. It is not proper to pursue it at this particular Stage of the Bill in this House.
I can see the Senator's point.
I think it is important. The point was made on Committee Stage that it might be appropriate for the resignation to come into effect at the next meeting of the board following the tendering of such resignation. Might I suggest again that the point be looked at and discussed, if necessary, in another place?
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 29 are related and may be taken together.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 5, to delete lines 32 to 40 and substitute the following new section:
10.—(1) A member of the Board who is either directly or indirectly interested in any company or concern with which the Board proposes to make any contract, or in any contract which the Board proposes to make—
(a) shall disclose to the Board the fact and the nature of such interest at the meeting of the Board at which the question of entering into such contract is first considered or, if he has no such interest at that time, as soon as may be after he has acquired such interest,
(b) shall take no part in any deliberations of the Board relating to such contract save to such extent as the chairman of the Board may permit,
(c) shall not vote on a decision relating to such contract, and
(d) shall not be counted in the quorum present at the meeting dealing with such contract.
(2) A disclosure under this section shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board.
The point was made by many Senators, particularly Senator FitzGerald, on Committee Stage that instead of this section we should apply the appropriate clauses in the Companies Act, 1955. I have had a look at that since Committee Stage and the draftsman advises me that the Companies Act provisions, which refer to commercial companies, would not be appropriate to the statutory body we envisage in the Nuclear Energy Board. However, the draftsman has come much of the way to meet the point made and the amendments are designed for this purpose. The provisions, as they now stand, are standard provisions and the amendments we now propose are a departure from the existing pattern. The points made were valid in regard to the disclosure of interest. As the Bill stood prior to amendment, the situation was that somebody who could be of considerable value to the board in their discussions on nuclear matters would be prohibited from taking part in and making a constructive contribution to such discussions. The improvements here are desirable; they mark a new departure. The points of view expressed by Senators are valid and I should like to see a similar type of drafting in all future legislation dealing with State boards. I am very thankful to the Senators who contributed to the discussion on this matter.
Again, may I express our pleasure that the Minister has introduced this amendment and gone a fair distance towards meeting the points raised. If Senator Alexis FitzGerald were here he might still press the Minister in regard to one or two points in connection with the amendment as it stands. I mention these points so that the Minister might consider them. Recalling what Senator Alexis FitzGerald said on Committee Stage in regard to the question of direct or indirect interest, he might well press the Minister in this instance to follow the Companies Act, which, so far as I am aware, specifically excludes interest by members of the family of the person concerned. This may not be quite as relevant in this connection as it would be in the Companies Act but, nevertheless, it is a point which should be remembered.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment indicates that the person shall take no part in the deliberations of the board relating to such contract save to such extent as the chairman of the board may permit. This is in line with what was suggested by a number of Senators when this matter was discussed on Committee Stage. However, it raises one particular point at this stage. One asks oneself what is the position of the chairman himself in regard to this. The amendment seems rather to be drawn to take care of the position of an individual member of the board and it seems that it may be stretching the wording of it to say that this covers the position of the chairman. In the case in which the chairman had made a particular disclosure I should like to raise the point as to whether it is proper for the chairman to preside over a subsequent discussion. If he did, he would only make such interventions as he permits himself. Nevertheless, one knows that a chairman, without speaking ad rem in a particular discussion, can merely by his formal control of the discussion make it move in certain directions. I would ask the Minister if he would consider further whether it might not be necessary to make special provision to insert a paragraph to take account of the particular position of the chairman and to consider if he might not be required to hand over to a deputy and perhaps remain present for the remainder of the discussion. I realise that this suggestion would involve amendment of other parts of the Bill in which the chairman is required, when present, to act as chairman, but I just want to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister.
The only other point is that I hope no one would take advantage of the fact that a person who makes a disclosure can only make such contributions as the chairman may permit, and assume that those who have made no disclosure may make any contributions they like with or without the permission of the chairman.
The amendment would cover the chairman because he is a member of the board. The board would have to find some way out of the problem if the chairman had made a disclosure.
I take Senator Brugha's point. First of all, the chairman is a member of the board. Then, under section 11, we have provision to cover a meeting of the board where the chairman is not present, or the office of chairman is vacant.
Might I intervene? I am not contending that the chairman is not covered; my concern is whether he is covered adequately.
Yes. I think he is as it stands, when you link sections 10 and 11 together. On the other point of the family, in my view the phraseology we have is an improvement on the Companies Act. That Act, as it stands, is too tightly drawn and this is the opinion of many people whose advice we sought since Committee Stage. "Directly or indirectly" is a better terminology in that it is more global and more flexible. In the view of many people, the existing terminology in the Companies Act is too tightly drawn.
The Chair might indulge me by saying that the Minister asked me to read sections 10 and 11 together. Subsection (4) of section 11 says that "The chairman shall have a second or casting vote". There are difficulties in regard to the position of the chairman and it might well be looked at again.
At the same time, if the Senator looks at the previous subsection—(3) (b)—where the chairman is absent, or the office is vacant, the members of the board present will choose one of their members to be chairman of the meeting. Would that meet the Senator's point?
I do not think so, but I am content to leave it to my colleagues in the other House to raise the matter, if they think fit.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 6, line 22, after "at any time" to insert "for stated reasons".
This is a point raised by Senator O'Higgins on Committee Stage. He felt very strongly that, under the subsection as it stands, the board might remove any of their officers or servants without giving any reason for the action. His view of this was that this would be unfair to the board's employees. I accept that point of view and I feel the section can be improved and the matter referred to by Senator O'Higgins rectified by inserting "for stated reasons".
I should like to congratulate the Minister on his enlightened attitude in this particular regard. The insertion of this is well justified and I only hope that this good example will be followed in many other instances.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 7, to delete lines 17 to 19.
This is to meet the view expressed by Senator Owens and other Senators who objected to the restriction imposed which is there as it now stands in section 15 (1) (c). I said on Committee Stage that I would delete this subsection and I now propose to do it in this amendment.
Again, we are grateful to the Minister for this. There was an injustice in the section as originally drafted. By deletion of the subsection it should be possible to give justice in the case where a person has broken service and it should be possible, by regulation, to avoid any element of double counting in regard to superannuation.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 7, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) Section 10 shall apply to a meeting of a committee appointed under this section as if it were a meeting of the Board."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 8, lines 34 and 35, to delete "under an order mentioned in section 5 (1) (c) of this Act or an offence".
Senator FitzGerald adverted to the fact that section 5 (1) (c), as it stands, created no offence and for that reason the board could not prosecute under the section. I accept the point and reference to section 5 subsection (1) (c) is being deleted. Section 6 contains the main control power in the Bill, as well as laying down the penalties for contravention. I think that it is then unnecessary to refer to any other section of the Bill in this section.
I take it that this leaves the position that where any officer of the board acts as an agent for the Minister for Health or the Minister for Labour, and a prosecution ensues that any act he takes in this prosecution will be on behalf of that Minister and that the Nuclear Energy Board will not be involved.
That is it precisely.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 8, to delete lines 37 to 43 and substitute the following section:
The Health Act, 1953, is hereby amended—
(a) by the insertion after "may" in section 59 (4) of ", after consultation with An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh,",
(b) by the insertion before "radio-active" and "irradiating apparatus" in section 59 (4) (a) of "medical",
(c) by the deletion of section 59 (4) (b), and
(d) by the insertion after section 59 (5) (a) (v) of the following—
"(vi) by officers or servants of An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 8, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following new section:
The Factories Act, 1955, is hereby amended—
(a) by the substitution in the definition of "inspector" in section 2 (1) of "a person" for "an officer of the Minister",
(b) by the insertion in section 71 (1) after "Minister for Health" of "(or, where a process of manufacture involves the use of radioactive substances within the meaning of the Nuclear Energy (An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh) Act, 1971, or of radioactive devices or irradiating apparatus, after consultation with An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh)", and
(c) by the insertion in section 93 (1) after "his officers" of "or, where appropriate, officers of An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh."
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for Final Consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I think that it would be inappropriate to allow the Bill to pass finally from this House without a general word of appreciation of the Minister for the manner in which he has conducted its passage. The Bill which he introduced was a good Bill but the Bill that he now brings to the Dáil is a better one. In this regard the amendments—all of which were Government amendments—which were brought into this Bill in large numbers have improved the Bill. The Minister is to be congratulated on the fact that he brought in this large number of Government amendments to meet points which had been raised by Senators.
The Bill, as we dealt with it today, is substantially better in regard to the co-ordination of the regulations concerning radioactive substances. There are a few points on which the Bill as it stands is perhaps a little unsatisfactory. There is just one I should like to mention and that is in regard to the penalties which arise under this particular Bill and the penalties that arise under other legislation. The Minister indicated that an examination in regard to this fact has been initiated and I hope this point will be further examined before the Bill finally passes.
There are a number of minor points which I raised here on Report Stage which, I think, could well bear further examination. However, I should like to return to saying that we are thankful to the Minister for having introduced this Bill here; we are thankful to him for the way in which he has listened to the Seanad in this regard and we only hope that the time we have kept him here will not discourage him from introducing further Bills of this non-controversial type into this House.
Thank you very much. I should just like to say on the question of the uniformity of penalties that I agree this is desirable but it is really a matter for the Health and Labour legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill to be sent to the Dáil.