Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Dec 1987

Vol. 118 No. 2

Science and Technology Bill, 1987: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

This is a very long section embodying the main thrust of the provisions of the Bill. There are a number of points I would like to ask the Minister about. This section is almost like a collection of very worthy goods and substantial aspirations that everything everybody wanted to do and to know about technology is included in this section. There are a few specific points. Subsection (10) (b) states:

to prepare and review periodically a national programme for science and technology in consultation with relevant institutions,

The word "periodically" occurs later on in the same section as well. Would it be more useful and more helpful if there was simply a period of three years or every five years put on that to prepare and review a national programme? One of the great failures in this country has been the absence of a national programme and this Government have tried to put such a realistic programme into place. My worry is that if the programme was to be reviewed and changed on an arbitrary basis the word "periodic" is not sufficiently precise. It could lead to either very frequent changes where the programme is zig-zagging in various ways with no real coherence, or it could mean that there is no great pressure on the new board to do any fundamental rethinking. Between now and Report Stage the Minister might think about whether it would be worth putting a specific time period on this section.

On section 8 (3) (g) line 20, I wonder about the need to involve the Department of Foreign Affairs in all of this. My feeling is that the fewer agencies involved the better. If the new board is competent, it should be competent to judge what is or is not appropriate within its own charter without having to consult with the Department of Foreign Affairs. That will add an extra layer of bureaucracy. I would like to know if the Department of Foreign Affairs under this section can actually say no to a proposal or whether they merely give their advice.

I raise this in another context. Over the past number of years quite a number of people from all parties in both Houses have sought to develop friendly relations with the Republic of China at Taiwan. We have done this for a number of reasons. I was one of these people and there are many others in both Houses who have been to that country as guests of the Government of Taiwan. Part of our brief as we saw it there was to try to attract investment from that country. They have this great balance of payments, great surplus, and they are interested in developing high tech industries in this country.

We, on an all-party basis sought to invite them here. On every occasion when a trip was organised, the Department of Foreign Affairs said: "no, it is not appropriate for you to go there, it is not proper, you should not do that, it is not playing the game, there is some sort of rule within the European Community which rules out Taiwan ever since relations were established with mainland China. Every other country in the European Community has a relationship with Taiwan, every other country is trying to attract investment from that country to their own country, every one of them is breaking this so called agreement yet our Department of Foreign Affairs, in an extremely priggish way, have lectured Members of both Houses about what they should or should not do. I wonder, in an area like this what is the point of having the Department of Foreign Affairs there if they do not have a veto. If the agency is sufficiently well established and sufficiently knowledgable it surely is able to make its own judgment in this matter. There are a few other aspects of this section I would like to come back to but perhaps, I could raise those two for a start.

Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce (Dr. McCarthy)

Senator Manning is a bit concerned about the words "review periodically" in section 8 (3) (b). He says it is a bit vague. We felt it appropriate not to specify a particular deadline type of date for reviewing these things. I can assure the Senator that it is my intention in relation to the review of all major national programmes in science and technology to provide for an ongoing assessment and review by a specialist subcommittee of the board.

I have already established in one area such a committee on an ad hoc basis in respect of the national biotechnology programme. These committees will operate somewhat along the lines of the programme management and review committees for the EC research programmes. That should be satisfactory because it will be ongoing. It would be better to have that rather than to say we will have a look at it every three years and see how it is working.

Mr. Manning

My main worry would be that at some stage if the agency was not doing terribly well, the word "periodically" could allow it to slide out of actually doing the review. Something stronger might be possible.

Dr. McCarthy

The agency will have to report on a continuing basis to the office of science and technology and to the Minister. I cannot see that there is any real loophole whereby the agency could be doing an ineffective job and get away with it. We will be able to scrutinise that carefully enough.

As regards Senator Manning's point in relation to the Department of Foreign Affairs and whether there was any need to involve the Department and whether they say no. In practice, the position is that the Department of Foreign Affairs are advised by the Department of Industry and Commerce in the case of any major international activity. To date I have not had examples of any vetoes being imposed in my area of responsibility. In the case of certain international agreements, it is the practice to collaborate with the Department of Foreign Affairs. For example, our ambassador in Brussels has power to be a signatory to certain international agreements in science and technology between the EC and third countries.

As regards the problem which the Senator seems to have in regard to Taiwan and the Department of Foreign Affairs, all I can say is that perhaps the Senator might take the matter up with the Department of Foreign Affairs when the particular vote is being discussed. It would be quite inappropriate of me to get involved in that area.

Mr. Manning

They probably know what the Minister thinks.

Dr. McCarthy

Not quite.

Mr. G. Reynolds

Section 8 is very broad and basically is the nucleus of the whole Bill. Many of the subsections are very broad. Subsection (6) gives additional functions to the Minister. I was wondering, after all the functions that are stated previously, what other functions basically would the Minister have involvement with. Section 9 (3) states that details of the financial allocations finally approved for the financial year——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Harte)

We are on section 8.

Mr. G. Reynolds

There is one other aspect of section 8 I want to mention. I find section 12 is not basically necessary because the Minister has already made reference to its provisions in section 8 (1) (f) and section 8 (3) (e) and (f). I refer to the reference "to promote, research, to engage in such activities related to science and technology as may be approved by the Minister and to disseminate and promote the dissemination of literature and information relating to science and technology". Section 12 covers basically the same thing.

Dr. McCarthy

Section 8 (6), which Senator Reynolds is concerned about, empowers the Minister, after consultation, to assign additional functions to the agency. I consider this to be a useful and appropriate provision because in the future, as a result of the process of rationalisation or for other reasons, it may be appropriate to assign new functions to the agency, and it is necessary to have the power to do so. For example, if the Government decided on the basis of the advice of the agency to revise the functions of an existing institution or to dissolve an existing institution, they might well decide to pass certain of the functions over to Eolas. In this situation the power provided in this subsection would be essential.

As regards Senator Reynolds' point about section 8 (1), the various objectives set out there may seem broad but we have tried to ensure that they are as comprehensive as possible to encompass any eventuality that might arise. They are actually taken directly from the 1977 National Board for Science and Technology Act. It is actually a duplication.

Mr. Manning

Subsection (5) states that the agency shall not engage in or promote any activity of a primarily military relevance without the prior approval of the Government. I wonder what we actually mean by "primarily military relevance" and will the agency in practice be required to draw up a check list of what is or is not a military type activity? With regard to research which will be geared for some type of military activity, will there then be different degrees and gradations within that? If, for example, research has been carried out on some aspects, say within the agency of this Bill, something which may well affect the use of satellites — I know the Minister has a special interest in star wars — that can be used both in peaceful terms and for military terms how will that decision be made? Will there be a special set of criteria so that the Government of the day do not find themselves accused of supporting an agency which is involved in military type research or activity.

Could I suggest to the Minister that, when this section is sorted out, the Government whose approval is required here should be as open as possible in this matter. We are a great nation for conspiracy theories — people who will get a piece of information who will then say that this agency, on Government approval, is engaged in research on satellites which are being used for NATO systems and therefore, a secret deal has been done.

We have all come across this sort of conspiracy theory where, from a very small starting point, we can suddenly find ourselves not just involved in NATO but probably starting the Third World War. I suggest that, if this clause has to be invoked, the Government and the agency should be as open as possible from the very beginning so that the conspiracy theorists are cut off before they can cut loose with their fantasies.

Dr. McCarthy

In relation to the problem which Senator Manning has put on section 8 (5), it is self explanatory. I am sure Senator Manning is aware of the fact that this again is an exact duplication of what is in the 1977 National Board for Science and Technology Act. That subsection arose as a result of an Opposition amendment at the time which was accepted by the Minister of the day. Obviously it is to ensure that this agency will not get involved in scientific research and development which would involve us in any association with an organisation such as NATO.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

I raised this question earlier about the word "periodically" I raise it more seriously at this point because when the effectiveness of programmes is to be monitored, those who are involved in the programmes, who are in receipt of funds, should know that they will have to account for what they are doing on a regular basis. I presume the agency will be setting up boards of assessors, and so forth, to review programmes I do not expect the Bill to be changed at this Stage but, where specific programmes are to be reviewed, there is a very strong case to be made for having this over a fixed period of time so that the people involved know when they have to be accountable and that they will be working within that more definite framework.

Dr. McCarthy

The point Senator Manning makes is very fair. I can put on the record of this House that I intend to have sub-committees of the agency reviewing all programmes and ensuring that public moneys are being used in a useful and cost effective way, that there is true and proper accountability and that the science budget for each year is open for full and complete discussion as to how it is being utilised in both Houses. When we have an agency with sub-committees reviewing it and that agency is under the aegis of the Office for Science and Technology with the Minister of the day keeping constant observations on its workings and how the budget is being utilised and it is clearly put before both Houses and open to discussion by Members of both Houses that will ensure proper accountability and proper efficiency.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

I will be very brief on this. Are any penalties envisaged where this section is not complied with, where organisations do not supply? Will there be protection — I suppose there will — for the institutions involved from over diligence by the new agency in seeking information which can often be of a detailed and perhaps unnecessary form? I hope this section will be worked sensibly.

Dr. McCarthy

The institutions involved are Government Departments and agencies and the question of the agencies supplying information to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Reynolds

I mentioned this on Second Stage and I am still not quite happy. The section states that the board of the agency shall appoint a person to be chief executive of the agency under a contract of service on such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the board with the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. Basically it is the Minister's appointment. I know the board have to agree to it, but if the Minister did not agree to the appointment would the individual be appointed?

Dr. McCarthy

It is self-explanatory. The board of the agency will appoint the chief executive of the agency. The Minister and the Minister for Finance have to agree to the terms of contract of service and the terms and conditions. They would have to be subject to the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. There is no question of the Minister appointing the chief executive. I can assure the Senator of that.

Mr. G. Reynolds

Perhaps if those comments were put in it might help.

Dr. McCarthy

The section states that the board of the agency shall appoint the chief executive of the agency under a contract of service on such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the board with the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance. It is nothing to do with the appointment; it has got to do with the contract.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

This in fact is standard in every Bill of this sort. I simply want to say what I said on a few occasions in the past that I disagree with it very, very strongly. It is unnecessary and a positive discrimination against politicians. Members of either House should not be barred from being members of a board of this sort. I can see many benefits. Obviously very few Ministers would ever appoint anybody from their own party because of the danger of being misrepresented. Frequently there are people in both Houses of the Oireachtas who have a special expertise and skill and interaction between specialised State boards and the Houses of the Oireachtas is an important one.

Governments can be trusted to behave in a responsible way in this manner and to only appoint people who are fully qualified to boards of this sort. This is positive discrimination against politicians. It could lead to a situation that a person who was a member of a board, who had political aspirations and a genuine contribution to make, would be debarred. He or she would feel debarred from coming into politics because of the certainty of losing his or her place on a board. In that case there is a loss to politics because of people of potential saying that they will not come in for that reason.

The political dimension and political experience on a board of that sort can often be extremely useful indeed. The former Senator FitzGerald is on the board of the Governors of University College along with me. I note there that with all of the high powered academics, the contribution of the politicians on that board often has a level of common sense and a level of wider experience which is greatly welcomed if the board are making up their mind on any matter. I know the Minister cannot change the position. I will not even ask him for his particular views on it. I am simply saying I do not like it.

Dr. McCarthy

I have listened to what Senator Manning has said. It would obviously be inappropriate for me to make a comment. If he wishes a change in relation to items such as these, which are standard, he should have a chat with his friends in Fine Gael and with some of his numerous friends in the Fianna Fáil and Labour Parties to see if they might bring about a change.

Mr. Manning

I note the Minister left out one party in talking about where I have my friends. He may be very right. This provision is something that would have to be changed on a fairly global basis. It is a case of politicians discriminating against themselves, I believe needlessly.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

Subsection (2) states that the agency shall not accept a gift. It is really back to the earlier question I was asking. What is a non appropriate gift in this way, will there be guidelines? I am trying to look for examples. If for instance, in the case of medical biotechnology a gift which was aimed at, say, research into abortion clearly would not be an appropriate gift. Will the guidelines be fairly clear? I do not see this sort of thing arising very often. My question is really whether there have been in the past fixed guidelines for this.

Dr. McCarthy

It would obviously be totally inappropriate and wrong of the agency to accept a gift which would have conditions attached to it which might give some privileged advantages to the donor, as a result of donating the gift. Anything that would have strings attached that might grant that person advantages over other people certainly could not be entertained.

Mr. Manning

There are fairly few guidelines already operating as to what is or is not an appropriate gift.

Dr. McCarthy

I am advised that needs are assessed actually on a case by case basis as to the purpose of the donation, whether it is for worthy reasons or otherwise or whether there is any peculiar underlying motivation behind it. There is no particular restriction.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 25.

Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

I do not want to appear to be nit picking on this. It really is a question which arises over a whole range of State activity covering the whole area of official secrets and what are and are not official secrets. No person who is or has been a member of the board shall disclose any information classified by the agency as confidential. Does that mean that the agency has a system in operation where information is classified on a highly confidential, highly secret basis? Could a person find himself in a situation where talking to a few people who are in the same area of activity, a few scientists talking together, somebody working for the board, could find that in Doheny & Nesbitts, for example, on a Friday evening he or she might very well disclose some sort of information which is then picked up and that person could then find himself suddenly either liable to a £500 fine or likely to be fired from his job?

It is a problem which happens much more than in the cases to which this agency will relate. It is right across all State information and we do not have the same paranoia as our friends across the water in regard to State secrets. Maybe we have fewer of them or maybe the definition of an Irish secret is where you tell one person at a time. Whatever it is my main question really is whether the agency have a system of classification so that a person will not inadvertently walk into a situation where he may find that he is in breach of this section.

Dr. McCarthy

As Senator Manning is aware this is a standard provision taken from the 1977 NBST Act. Confidentiality is important in relation to the work of the agency particularly in contract work where patents or inventions may be involved. Common sense would dictate to anyone working with the agency that where you have an employee of the agency doing contract research work for industry obviously that is an area of very special confidentiality. A breach of that would obviously give enormous advantage to competitors in the industrial market. Common sense would dictate to an employee where that person would be in actual breach of confidentiality.

Mr. Manning

Just two quick observations on that. Under the 1977 Act were prosecutions ever brought under the corresponding section? I wonder about the £500 fine. If a person is prosecuted and found guilty in addition to the £500 fine I presume that dismissal is automatic or is that the case? The £500 fine seems to be a rather low limit if in fact the disclosure of information could well have a monetary value in many multiples of the £500.

Dr. McCarthy

Senator Kennedy mentioned a case where the fine had to be imposed. The situation has not arisen where someone who had been fined would also have lost their job, so a precedent has not been established. I will have to leave the answer to that until it happens. As regards the raising of the fines from £500 upwards, we have been advised that £500 is adequate.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 26 agreed to.

SECTION 27.

Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning

I want to get slight elaboration on what the Minister said in his Second Stage speech on the question of voluntary redundancies, staff being transferred and so forth. Is the Minister saying that there will only be voluntary redundancies and the same terms will be offered to staff as in the public sector and if this has been agreed and worked out?

Dr. McCarthy

Yes. There have been discussions between the executive officers of board agencies with the various interested parties. There will be no question of redundancies being forced on individuals. It will be on a voluntary basis, the same as applies to the public sector.

Mr. Manning

How many people are involved?

Dr. McCarthy

I would not be too precise but I would imagine it is in the region of about 400.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.