Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee National Board for Science and Technology Bill, 1976 debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1977

SECTION 4.

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.

I agree with the thrust of Deputy O'Malley's thought very much but the reason why I will propose something in a moment that will go some of the way rather than accepting the amendment is for a reason of practicality. I agree with Deputy O'Malley when he says he wants something more than the NSC and I have no doubt that this Board will be more. The reason it will be more is because of the Science Budget. That is where the power and the enforcement is. I endorse the wish to enforce greater power but it is not a wish in terms of practicality that should be acceded to.

Here we are dealing with people who are aware of their own boundaries. I believe the Science Budget will produce co-ordination, but if we were to go any further and try to compel them to love each other we would generate immense confusion. I will make a suggestion in relation to section 4 (1) (c) and (3) (c), which are extraordinarily similar. The first is " to promote the co-ordination of public investment" and the second is " to promote the co-ordination of activities ". In the amendment we are purporting to take powers which we do not possess.

I would go a considerable distance in the direction Deputy O'Malley wants to go and agree that we might state " to co-ordinate activities in relation to science and technology". We are talking about things governed by statute under which institutions have very specific powers. If we do as I have suggested, we will be going some of the way but not as far as to promote chaos. We will be dealing with people who are very articulate and literate and we might otherwise get the opposite effect to that which we want.

Does section 4 (1) (c) refer to the money provided for the board's budget exclusively or does it have wider application?

My understanding is that the Science Budget as envisaged would emcompass the majority, if not 100 per cent, of public investment in science and technology.

Would it cover the sugar company, say, in Carlow, laying aside something for research and development—would that be public investment within the meaning of this?

There is a difficulty here. To the extent that it is concerned with research and development, yes; but so far as it concerns their ordinary manufacturing activities, no.

Even though the money was to come from the sugar company's funds and not from the board's budget?

This is the nub of the issue. If we were to say that all such money for every such company—CSET are a good example—was to come out of the Vote for the Board or the Vote for the Minister responsible for the Board, you would be building an administrative monster that might become impossible to control.

Let us say the sugar company decided to spend £100,000 on research and development, would they be entitled to say: " We think this is a good thing. You are not going far enough." Could they get a further, say, £30,000 for that project?

There are two separate things: one is the Science Budget which is an endeavour to co-ordinate all the expenditure, and the other concerns the money the NBST command. The board would have power to give grants, but not to do the major work. In reply to the Deputy's question it would be a matter of topping things up or restoring balances.

It is a matter of avoiding not only duplication but triplication.

We are moving away from the amendment.

There is a distinction between promoting and co-ordinating endeavour.

During the last war we had more than one example of the Department of Defence wanting some research done and they would inquire of firms and institutes if they could do it—for instance, metal processing, the melting down of material from aeroplanes. There was co-ordination but there could not be any degree of compulsion—persuasive selling, shall we say?

I would suggest to Deputy O'Malley that the Minister's suggestion in section 4 (3) (c) to replace " to promote the co-ordination of " by " to co-ordinate " meets his point.

I suppose it goes some of the way. There is a significant difference between section 4 (1) and section 4 (3). Section 4 (1) is the principal section dealing with the setting out of powers. If there were a dispute afterwards about the powers of the board and if a court had to determine exactly what those powers were, the court would lay far greater emphasis on what is set out in section 4 (1) rather than what is set out in section 4 (3). Section 4 (3) begins with the usual reference " Without prejudice to the generality " of the foregoing subsections. It particularises rather than puts it into the more general category. I suppose it goes part of the way to meeting my point. In the circumstances I would agree to that change.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, subsection (1) (c), line 1, after "public" to insert "and private".

The Board obviously cannot enforce how private investment in science and technology is to be utilised. One does not seek to give them that power because if a particular company wants to spend its own money on a research project then the Board or the Government have no right to tell them otherwise. In view of the fact that the rather vague phrase "to promote the co-ordination of" is retained in this subsection, I do not think there is any conflict in trying to ensure—in so far as the limited powers of the Board can do so—that public and private investment in science and technology would be co-ordinated to the greatest possible extent. If some firm like Guinness decide to do research on a particular project obviously the Board should try to be aware of that and should stop, say, the Sugar Company doing similar research and get the companies involved to swop their information, as it were.

It was the existence of amendment No. 2 which made amendment No. 3 difficult to accept, because while we could promote the co-ordination of public and private we could not co-ordinate because we do not have the power. Since we have left it " to promote the co-ordination " I should be happy to accept this amendment. This is a very desirable aspiration.

There could be some formal way of writing to the research departments of companies that are known to involve themselves in private research asking them to inform the board each year what they intend to do.

I think it introduces a new concept. It is not one with which I am in disagreement, the co-ordination of public and private investment. I feel it would be better to describe it in a new subsection. The co-ordination of public investment is, in itself, a worthwhile activity which should stand independent of the fact that we are trying to ensure the greatest possible co-ordination between public and private investment. In other words, there would be two areas of attempted co-ordination. If both are expressed within one subsection it would mean just the co-ordination of public and private investment. I thought the primary purpose was to ensure the co-ordination of public investment and within the ambit of doing that one would also try to promote the co-ordination of public and private investment. Within the initial four or five years if the Board were to do no more than ensure a certain degree of co-ordination and harmony it would be a very valuable public service. Having been involved in an area of the public service one realises the lack of co-ordination in the very tiny amount of research and development which we do. We are talking about something which is really non-existent in the national sense. I do not want to see a construction placed on that which would now limit the functions of the board to the co-ordination of public and private, the word " and " being important.

I think Deputy Halligan's remarks made a great deal of sense but I do not think they fundamentally alter the agreement between the Minister and Deputy O'Malley.

I see the point that Deputy Halligan is making and it is possible that such an interpretation could be put on this. The people who matter in the interpretation will be the Board members. I presume they will read this debate and see what our reading is. The difficulty is more likely to be encountered if a court were interpreting the provision rather than the members of the board. This could, I think, be overcome by changing the amendment to read " to promote the co-ordination of public investment and of private investment in science and technology."

I suggest " and of public with private investment". It would then read " to promote the co-ordination of public investment and of public with private investment."

That seems to be an acceptable format.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Then I move amendment 3a:

In page 3, subsection 1 (c), line 1, after " investment " to insert " and of public with private investment."

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following paragraph:

" (g) to promote in particular the application in industry of science and technology,".

By putting this in we should keep before the minds of the members of the Board and their staff the importance and necessity of the application of science and technology in a practical sense to industry. We have lagged behind very considerably in this field. We are behind most, if not all, our neighbours in this respect. It should be set out as one of the chief objectives of the Board to try to fulfil this vital national objective. It is not necessary to go into all the reasons why it is desirable from an historical point of view, but I hope that in the circumstances the amendment will be acceptable.

I completely accept the intention behind this amendment and I accept what the Deputy says. It certainly improves the Bill, but I have a difficulty about drafting. One of the great difficulties is that many organisations below the level of the national board, such as An Foras Forbartha and A.F.T. feel that they have to be very careful to guard their own rights and prerogatives, and they are a bit afraid of an " Industry and Commerce " bias in this and the word " industry " would give rise to worries that the new arrangements were unbalanced. I would suggest, therefore, a wider formulation which contains Deputy O'Malley's idea and which, I hope, will commend itself to the Committee. I would suggest:

to promote the application of science and technology to economic and social development.

That is wider and there is no mention of industry but " economic " encompasses industry and other things.

I must confess I would regard the practical application of science and technology to the furtherance of industry particularly as being of special importance and a special need. " Economic and social development" is a very vague phrase. It could cover virtually anything. It widens the scope enormously beyond where the need, I think, is greatest. If you have a phrase as wide as that, the efforts of the Board to help industrial development, where the need is greatest, will possibly be lessened. They will see their responsibility in this respect as being so wide as to cover virtually any development of any kind. Social development could, for example, so far as science and technology are concerned, mean a more efficient way of paying old age pensions or something like that. It could go tremendously wide. The Board, despite whatever feelings certain bodies may have, should have an industrial bias. One of the reasons I welcome this Bill is because science and technology as applied to industry have lagged behind. We have not had the practical application that there has been in other countries and we are suffering at the moment because of that. Without extending the argument too far, one can see that part of the reason why new industry over the past 20 years had such a high foreign content was because the practical application of science and technology here had lagged behind. One would like to see that situation reversed if at all possible. I think this Board, even with its limited powers, could do something in that direction and I would not apologise to anyone for seeking to have an industrial bias in this respect. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to think about it again.

I see the force of what Deputy O'Malley says. To some extent this is a matter of language because in our normal usage of language we refer to the agricultural industry and the fishing industry and so "industry" could encompass other things as well. If, however, in this amendment, we make reference specifically to industry then those engaged in other areas, such as the marine area of a non-industrial kind, the fishing area and the area of agriculture, will be in difficulty. The people engaged in agricultural research, for instance, would be in difficulty.

Could we take out " industry " and say " economic development "—to promote in particular the application of economic development in science and technology?

That would certainly encompass the idea. I am very much in sympathy with the thought but I want to articulate the real, practical difficulty about omitting a reference to social development. An Foras Forbartha and the ESRI have sought exclusion from the umbrella of the Bill as have various other people. If you do something which specifically excludes the social area it may well be that An Foras Forbartha or the ESRI will say " That leaves us out." While I completely accept the thrust of what Deputy O'Malley is saying that is a real possibility.

I agree with the Minister. There are precise meanings for the word " science " and " science " is not defined in any Act. Is the suggestion that a chemist is a scientist but an economist is not?

I would say the Deputy was correct in both statements.

If we confine the meaning of "science" to physical science we are going to run slap bang into a conflict because the great scientific developments which open up under it are surely the social sciences.

Yes, but are they envisaged in this?

They are. We have said that economic and social sciences are included, and properly so. They are becoming harder and more scientific all the time and one could not leave them out.

I was taken by Deputy O‘Malley's example. I would have thought that a proper thing to study—if this Board could do it I would regard it alone as a vindication of its establishment—would be a greater efficiency in the payment of old age pensions. In this huge area of how we relate to people and how institutions relate to people there is need for hard and critical research. We just do not know. If we are going to say that some guy working in his laboratory identifying the 191st element is a scientist but somebody working with people is not, then we are unnecessarily restricting these people.

I will accept the Minister's rewording of the amendment. The only reservation I have about it is that I think there is a need for the practical application of scientific and technological knowledge to industry. I am thinking particularly of smaller industries, not the kind of ICI complexes. I am thinking of technical advice and assistance from knowledge that the Board might be able to obtain through the co-ordination of investment in science and technology, being made available to the smaller industries which they would not of their own resources be able to acquire.

That reminds me of an example of this I came across some years ago when the Kilkenny Design Centre was doing certain work with rather expensive material. Manufacturing jewellers who were dealing with a cheaper type of material were complaining that they were not being catered for. At the time the organisers of an international gathering of a well-known women's organisation in this city wanted to purchase souvenirs. As the top design ones were in very precious metals they could not afford them and the ordinary manufacturer, a jeweller, who had not the benefit of the designs research sold colossal quantities to foreigners. As Deputy O'Malley said the practical application at various levels is very important and I am sure that is conceded by everybody.

Would it not be true to say that the definition of technology is the application of science to industrial processing so that it is really tautology to link technology with industry because it has no meaning. What is a technologist if he is not a scientist in an industrial process?

Everyone agrees with the need to see that the thing happens in practice and that will be largely influenced by the people who are put on the Board by whatever Government makes that decision. If we choose people who are seized of that ideal then it will happen.

Then a social scientist, a physical scientist and a technologist could be planted on the Board?

That is the idea.

It is possible to have a very high science orientated society and a very low technological output.

The Minister was talking about the composition of the Board.

In practice I agree with the idea. We have agreed to amend the amendment which reads:

" to promote the application of science and technology to economic and social development."

No doubt, included in the idea of promotion, there would be a journal. Would a journal be issued under the auspices of the Board?

The whole information question is dealt with later. I agree with the Deputy that it is a very important matter.

The IIRS journal is a very good one.

The point about definition raised by Deputy Halligan is very important because there is such a thing as a traditional definition. I tacitly read this Bill to the point that I was dealing with the material side of sciences. If it is envisaged that this should broaden out to include the whole lot is it in keeping with the whole structure of the Bill? I am not against it; I am raising the question of definition.

It would be very difficult to define cut-off points. Where does a physical chemist cease to be a chemist and become a physicist?

Even more so in the application of technology: where does the economist stop and the pure technician, the engineer or the chemist who is applying it, come in? Even there it is even harder to differentiate.

If we are going to start chopping up the sciences we are going to wind up with the difficult problem of saying where the physical sciences end and the social sciences begin.

In relation to the difficulty of definition of science in the context of this Bill science could be construed in the way lawyers call eusdem generis, with the word that goes with it. It would take its gloss or meaning from the word that goes with it. The word that goes with it here for the purposes of this Bill is technology. Science, for the purposes of this Bill, is not as broad as Deputy Halligan would define it. It is the sort of science that one would associate with technology and, could therefore, extend exclusively to the physical sciences which have their practical application in industrial, chemical and similar methods of production.

We could talk about this a great deal. It is important to remember that this, like any other Bill, is an enabling one. What is done is setting the guidelines which the Board evolves in terms of maximising the finite funds available to it. That will be in the direction Deputy O'Malley wishes. I should like to point out, from the other side, that it would seem inconceivable that we should narrow in this Bill the scope which was given in 1968 by the Minister for Finance in setting up the NSC because he made it clear to them that, "all science is your concern". I should also like to point out that in the Community context, whether it is in France or Germany, or in the practice of Community science policy, it is used in the widest sense. To see that the scarce resources are focussed where they are most needed in the very concrete economic areas Deputy O'Malley and I want is a matter for the guidelines given to the people selected. I do not think we need legislate in the narrow way.

Amendment amended by leave, by the deletion of "particular" and "in industry" and after " technology " to add " to economic and social development".

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following paragraph:

" (h) to promote through scientific and technological study and research the development of Ireland's natural resources."

I suggest that "study and research" would be rather narrow. I move an amendment to amendment No. 5:

To delete " through scientific and technological study and research the development of Ireland's natural resources" and substitute "the development of Ireland's natural resources through the application of science and technology".

What one would be seeking is to have the natural resources developed to the greatest extent possible.

I cannot see any great difference between that and my amendment because study and research are all the board will have to do anyway—the physical work will be done by somebody else. Study and research will be the extent of the Board's functions.

They will be the National Board of Science and Technology, and they could go beyond study and research. I should like to see them furthering the production of prototypes. " Study and research" is rather limited.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

In connection with the discussion on amendment No.2. I move the following amendment:

In page 3, line 22, to delete " to promote the co-ordination of " and substitute " to co-ordinate ".

Amendment agreed to.
The Committee adjourned at 5.20 p.m., until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10th March, 1977.
Top
Share