I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1) (c), line 1, to delete " to promote the co-ordination " and substitute " to co-ordinate".
I am seeking to give the Board a more positive role. A phrase such as " to promote the co-ordination " is, to say the least of it, a bit vague. It encourages the Board to do the best they can but it implies that it does not really matter if they do not succeed. As long as they are promoting it, that will do. I feel that the Board should be more positive and effective. One of the principal weaknesses of the Bill arises in this section. As I see it, the weakness of the Bill is not that its objectives are not commendable but that it may just end up as a talking-shop. Section 4 as a whole is full of pious aspirations. It has no teeth in it. It has no way in which to enforce its opinion. There may be many in particular institutes who are glad of that, such as the IIRS and An Foras Forbartha. These are not enamoured of this because they do not know how it will work vis-�-vis them.
I drafted this amendment to meet that situation but the Minister, who has better facilities than I have, might be better able to draft an appropriate amendment for Report Stage. He should set out in some detail the statutory relationship that will exist between this Board and existing semi-State and educational institutions. If he does not do that, we will end up in a situation in which this Board will be ignored by some of the finest semi-State or educational institutions. Undoubtedly, in a situation of this kind, personality clashes will occur between the Board members or the Board officials and some of these institutions. An Foras Talúntais, which would be one of those involved, will be abolished under the Bill now going through the Dáil, but the new agricultural board will presumably have the same kind of difficulties of relationship. I tabled this amendment to try to make the function of the Board more definite and specific. A phrase like "to promote the co-ordination of" does not really achieve very much. It encourages the Board to try but it does not give the Board the final say I think they should have. In certain areas at least they should have the final say and for that reason I am trying to be more specific than the wording of the Bill. I would ask the Minister to accept the principle and accept the amendment.
In general under section 4 and arising out of this amendment if the functions of this Board are not made more specific, the Board will end up simply as a formalised or institutionalised incorporated version of the existing National Science Council and it should be somewhat more than that. The National Science Council is to a great extent a voluntary organisation in the sense that is is not promoted by statute but this Board should be more than just that.