Was it proposed to accept that amendment?
SECTION 4 (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 7:
In page 3, between lines 52 and 53, to insert the following paragraph:
(m) to advise and assist in the registration of patents.
—(Deputy O'Malley).
No. We are of the view that the Patents Office is fully competent in the matter of patents and their registration. While it might seek the advice of the board or perhaps, more likely, some individual members of the staff in relation to individual patents, the need would not exist for the board to be formally involved as one of its functions in the registration of patents. There would be a division of functions which would result from any such provision and this would not be desirable. The responsibility should remain fully with the Patents Office.
Arising out of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, am I right in thinking that what he said was that the Patents Office was adequate to deal with patents formally rather than have it under this Bill?
It is the job of the Patents Office to deal with patents. Whether it is dealing with it adequately or not is another matter. It is a matter for discussion in relation to the functioning of the Patents Office within its own terms of reference rather than giving another body responsibility for it.
I thought as much.
I can understand that is an official or formal point of view, but the actual facts raise a problem which forms the substance of Deputy O'Malley's amendment. The Patents Office are primarily concerned with the registration of patents. They are absolutely unconcerned with the merits beyond that, and they are unconcerned with what I might call the national interest here. Deputy Halligan pointed out the ongoing nature of science and we cannot be confined to 19th century ideas and concepts here. In practice, this amendment might be important. I do not for one moment suggest this would be the general and ordinary case for patents but, as far as the normal routine procedure would be concerned, there would be no disputing what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. There will occur, perhaps only occasionally, a type of case which is not provided for. It could arise as follows. Some person or body—it may be an individual worker or it may be the research department of a business firm—may light on a process, or some original idea, which has commercial potential and that commercial potential may be of such a nature that it is more than would remain in the area of private gain. In other words, there is a potential in this invention which the public here have an interest in. I could give a number of examples but they are rather technical and, unless anybody wants them, I will not delay the Committee with them.
The point is that you can have a development—an invention if you like—a new idea, which is technologically applicable to commercial exploitation and it has an interest, not only from the private point of view of the person who has hit on it and developed it up to a point, but from the public point of view as well. In a case like that, the existing machinery might be too slow and inadequate. Here would be a case of possible urgency in projection and seeking priority. Incidentally, I do not know what the correlation with other countries in the EEC on this matter might be. If you have that case, then the body we are talking about will be vitally interested in whether this matter has a potential for the community.
If I might add a comment to what the Deputy said, I think there is a problem vis-�-vis the function of the Patents Office. My own view is that Deputy O’Malley’s amendment cuts across their particular function but there is merit in what the Deputy said. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary——
Would the Chairman allow me to continue? I will only take a moment.
May I make one point?
Yes, certainly.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary would be disposed to accept it but suppose it read something as follows, to take your point:
To assist in the development of projects based on Irish patents.
I think it gets the point across without——
In section 4 (3) (j) the board already has the function to undertake and assist in consultation with the appropriate institutions in the development and exploitation of inventions. In other words, that would give the board a function both up to and after the process of the invention through the Patents Office.
Might I answer that by saying it has not been unknown for bodies charged with certain duties to resent intrusion. There is one case in the area of industry and commerce in my mind at the moment where there is competition between two bodies for certain purposes and this can cause delay to people who are interested. I would fear that something like this would happen. The work of the Patents Office is essentially different from the work here. The Patents Office are there historically to provide a protection for the individual inventor or innovator, and to provide a legal protection mechanism by which the protection given to him by law, like copyright, could be enforced. That is their function, but the function here is to encourage development and, having done it, to reap the full benefits of invention and innovation for the community as a whole as well as the individual. That distinction is important and makes Deputy O'Malley's point valid.
Certain proposals have been made. " To advise " is necessary. Whether that would be qualified by circumstances, or whether there would be reference to the draftsman on co-ordination between the two bodies, is another matter. If the matter is left solely to the Patents Office, I would be bold enough and rash enough to prophesy that circumstances could arise where, through the delay and routine circumscriptions of the Patents Office functions, there would be a loss to the community and something that could be exploited here would be exploited elsewhere and the benefit thereof would go elsewhere. That summarises the case I am trying to make.
The Parliamentary Secretary said he is satisfied the Patents Office are adequate for the purposes for which they were established, to register and presumably protect Irish patents. Anyone who knows the faintest thing about the Patents Office knows that they are totally inadequate, and could not be less adequate. The last day I quoted what I have said on Second Stage, as reported at column 1140, and what the Minister said in reply as reported at column 1186, where he agreed with me that what I said about the Patents Office was accurate. One of the things I said was that it can take five years to register a patent. In the meantime, you have made your application and waited five years to get it registered and other people in other countries are exploiting your invention. That is not a satisfactory situation. The Patents Office are not adequate to deal with these problems.
The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to suggest in what he said that this amendment would have the effect of enabling the National Board for Science and Technology to do something about registering patents. That is not so at all. The function of registration, which is a purely legal function, would remain with the Patents Office. But advice and assistance could be given, not just to the Patents Office but to the applicant, by the board which might well expedite the registration which would protect the invention. There is nothing in the amendment to suggest that the board would have any rights or responsibilities about registration. It simply says " to advise and assist ".
Perhaps we could agree on an amendment. I did not set out to say that everything in the Patents Office was perfect. What I did say was that it was their function to deal with this sort of matter, that I believed that no purpose could be served by dividing the function and apparently giving a function in relation to registration of patents to another statutory body and that, far from solving problems, this sort of division of responsibilities would aggravate them.
However, I would be prepared to agree to an amendment which would not take from the functions of the Patents Office or purport in any way to go over the functions of the Patents Office either directly or by implication but would provide as follows: " That the NBST could advise and assist people in trying to register and protect their inventions or seeking to register and protect their inventions." This would mean that if a person was, for instance, asked for information by the Patents Office in pursuit of an application and they wanted assistance in getting that information, they could seek help from the NBST. I think that would meet most of the cases while not taking over in any way the sole statutory function of the Patents Office.
Perhaps section 4, subsection (3) (j) might read:
. . . to undertake and assist, in consultation with the appropriate institutions, in the development and exploitation of inventions, and to advise and assist in the registration of Patents.
That would be really just putting Deputy O'Malley's amendment in another place which would mean going back to an earlier section.
We could leave out the word "assist" and keep the word " advise ". We are talking about helping people with their inventions here and in the same voice we are saying we will also give them advice on how to patent them. We are not telling them how, in actual fact, to patent them. We are just advising them on what they should do and how they should go about it. It is simply a question of advice.
May I attempt to summarise what has been said by both speakers? If what the Parliamentary Secretary suggests is acceptable to Deputy O'Malley and if there is a consensus here, could it be included, as Deputy O'Brien suggests, in section 4 (3) (j) where it seems to fit more into context?
I do not think there is any problem in inserting it as a separate function. I do not think there is much gained by putting it in at the end of another paragraph.
We are talking about inventions and assisting people. That would be the follow-up.
It does not matter. To get the matter finalised it would be better if we could do it now. If we go back to a previous paragraph we cannot do it at this stage. We will have to wait until Report Stage.
I think 4 (3) (j) already does exactly what Deputy O'Malley's amendment has in mind because it refers to " in the development and exploitation of inventions ". You cannot exploit an invention until your have it patented.
Yes, but what if it takes you five years to patent it? That is where the problem lies.
That is another point I would like to make. The amendment is not going to hurry up the Patents Office in any way as far as I can see.
A relevant question here might be to ask if the people in the Patents Office have legal qualifications or technical qualifications or a combination of both? It is very important. If they have purely legal qualifications this amendment is very necessary.
Both.
It seems to me that if there is a problem in the Patents Office that should be tackled in an area other than this Bill. I think we should revert to the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion and see whether there is agreement.
Could we have the amendment read out?
It reads: " To advise and assist inventors in registering and protecting their inventions." We are proposing to substitute that for the Deputy's amendment.
You cannot register your invention. What you register is a patent.
You get a patent for your invention. You do not register the patent in the sense that you do not have a patent when you go in first.
You apply for registration of your invention as a patent.
The amendment says that. It refers to inventors registering and protecting their inventions.
Is the Deputy agreeable to withdrawing his amendment in favour of the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. a7a:
(m) to advise and assist inventors in registering and protecting their inventions.
Amendment agreed to.
The last point that I think is relevant now is whether or not that should be more relevantly included in (j) as Deputy O'Brien suggested or whether it forms a separate subsection. Deputy O'Brien has made a valid point that (j) refers to matters related to this matter.
Can we go back to an earlier section?
It can be done by way of a Report Stage amendment.
We may have to get advice from the parliamentary draftsman anyway as to the appropriateness of the amendment as suggested orally and at that stage we can make any changes in the logical sequence and so forth. But I think we should at least agree the thing in principle now and do it. If we have to change it on Report Stage, well so be it.
Then, that is agreed.
Question proposed: " That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The big weakness about the section in general and the functions of the board in general, as I think I said the last day, is they have not the specific powers that one would wish they had. The powers tend to be advisory and in the nature of giving assistance rather than being able to lay down the law about certain aspects of science and technology. I think the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to that was that the kind of control that one would have wished for will come in the Science Budget through financial controls rather than through statutory functions.
I think that is perhaps less satisfactory than it might be. We have even since the last day examples of some of these bodies being very jealous of new bodies performing functions in relation to them. We have had examples of that in regard to agricultural research over the last couple of months where it is proposed to put all agricultural research under the direct control of the Minister and the Department and where the principal existing body involved in agricultural research, or at least a substantial part of the membership of the staff of that body, take considerable exception to this proposal on the grounds that the independence of the research that has been carried out up to now will be, potentially at least, interfered with in the future.
One notices, and I think it was observed generally the last day, that among the staffs of bodies of this kind there can be very considerable jealousies as to where precisely the boundaries of their functions lie. This board do not do anything to define those boundaries so far as scientific, technological or industrial research is concerned. We may well have after the establishment of this Board a repetition of the problems that appear now to exist in relation to the agricultural equivalent of this area. I think it would be desirable if we could avoid these disputes as to jurisdiction and as to functions in the interests of research and development of technology generally. It would be regrettable to see this arise now in the industrial or technological field in the way that it has arisen in the agricultural field. Of course this is equally important with agricultural research. Some might say it is even more necessary because there has been a considerable amount of successful agricultural research in this country in the last few decades. The same can hardly be said to the same extent for technological or industrial research. I think it is a matter that should be considered in some depth.
It is a pity the Minister is not here today because I think he might indicate certain possibly different views to the Parliamentary Secretary. He has probably given more thought to this matter than the Parliamentary Secretary, who is only sent in to fill the gap. It is important and fundamental to the whole concept of this research. If it gets off on the wrong footing it will never go right and much of the energy and time of many of the staff involved will be spent on disputes as to their functions. I am thinking here now not so much of the universities and so on who are covered under subsection (4) of this section as of institutions like the IIRS which already has had its fair share of disputes before this Bill comes into force at all. The difficulties may be compounded by this Bill rather than lessened because of the essential vagueness of the terms of section 4 as a whole.
It is not that I disagree with the terms of the section. The sentiments are all right. It is the vague way in which they are expressed and the fact that if a dispute arises with another body the terms of section 4 certainly will not be able to resolve the dispute and there may well be considerable overlapping. Under subsection (1) of this section the board are supposed to promote the co-ordination or public and private investment and so on, but if a dispute arises the board's statutory powers will not allow them to make the final decision. If, for example the IIRS wants to do work which is paralleling the work that this board or somebody else privately is doing, the board cannot put their foot down and say " No, you cannot do it." The Parliamentary Secretary says that they could hold up the money or something of that kind. That is a very vague sanction. It could take years to have an effect.
It is very effective.
It may be effective in the long term, but it is vague in the short term. It may be that for a period of 12 months or so there will be the kind of overlapping that one would wish to avoid and there is nothing the board can do. The board are not established as the final arbiter. If this board are being proposed as that, fair enough, let them be; let somebody be. If that does not happen the internal scientific disputes and technological disputes may well continue.
These are just general observations on the section, because with all the amendments we have made, and we have made many, we have not changed the underlying difficulty: that the functions and powers of the board are expressed in enabling terms rather than in precise terms of defining jurisdiction and, in the event of dispute, enabling the board to make the ultimate decision as to who does what.
I just want to make a few remarks. Line 6, page 3, states: " to advise the Minister at his request". I should prefer if the board could advise the Minister whether or not he requested them. The board might be in a better position than the Minister to know where advice was necessary. A further paragraph links in a bit with what Deputy O'Malley has just said. At line 42 it is stated " To engage in studies on manpower, in consultation with . . .". I would like something such as " or in association with other appropriate institutions", the idea being, particularly with regard to manpower, that the IDA conduct manpower surveys and AnCO do this kind of thing with the Department of Labour, county development associations and so on. There is no point in duplicating, as Deputy O'Malley has said, in that regard. There is no reason why the board could not conduct their studies in association with any of these.
May I interrupt the Deputy? Will he please speak a little louder because the reporters find it impossible to hear him.
The other general point I want to make on the section is this. I did not put it down as an amendment. It is the idea of getting the board to encourage and facilitate industry and other institutions involved in science and technology to provide opportunities for practical training and experience for technologists and technicians because third level institutions need this kind of expert aid and help. There is a whole field of dispute in that regard at the moment. I mentioned earlier the idea in the Soviet Union of the VTUZ institutions which are directly related to an industry and where scientific and technological research are carried out, so to speak, on the spot. Those are the only remarks I have to make. I am sorry if I could not be heard.
Just a few remarks on the section. Are we satisfied the section meets the objectives in the OECD Report of 1974 which reviewed national scientific and technological policy in Ireland? Paragraph (f) reads:
to disseminate and promote the dissemination of literature and information relating to science and technology.
We could also fit in there: " and the updating of skills". We tend to leave out skill, which is a very important facet in science and technology.
We have gone past the stage of making amendments to this section.
I am making general remarks which can be taken up at a later stage if they are thought worth while. I agree with Deputy Wilson on the question of advising the Minister at his request. There should be a full stop after "advise the Minister". The Minister has many pressures on him and I believe the board should be feeding him with information all the time and not just at his request.
Paragraph (b) reads:
to prepare and review periodically a national programme for science and technology in consultation with relevant institutions.
I am always nervous of words like " periodically ". To my mind " periodically " may mean once every month, or once every three months. To somebody else it could mean every four years depending on how they operate. Perhaps we could look at these points.
Could I make one point? Deputy Wilson's and Deputy O'Brien's point vis-�-vis advising the Minister at his request on matters related to science and technology is covered under section 4 (b) which states that the board shall advise the Government or the Minister on the board’s initiative or at the request of the Minister on policy for science and technology and related matters. The latter point to which Deputy Wilson refers in a sense is superfluous.
That is the one about association with.
Section 4 (b) covers the point.
If the Chairman is right in that, paragraph (e) should not be there at all. We should take (e) out altogether.
That is what I am suggesting. I do not know whether we have the authority to do it at this stage.
An amendment could be put down for Report Stage. That is the purpose of this discussion.
Paragraph (b) says:
to advise the Government or the Minister on the board's initiative or at the request of the Minister on policy for science and technology and related matters.
I think the Chairman is right and that paragraph (e) is totally superfluous. It simply restates part of what is in paragraph (b). It is a very badly drafted Bill.
There is a difference. If one looks at it closely one will see that in section 4 (1) (b) the reference is to advising the Minister on policy whereas in section 4 (1) (e) it is in relation to any matter. That could be a technical matter of fact, not of policy, that the Minister might wish to have advice on. Under paragraph (b) it is simply matters of a policy nature.
The words " and related matters " at the end of paragraph (b) cover those under paragraph (e).
Not necessarily. There could be a pure matter of fact which was not related to policy at all which conceivably the Minister might wish to get information on under paragraph (e).
My suggestion would give more freedom to the board. Paragraph (b) frees them completely on policy, and paragraph (e) would free them on policy plus.
Most of the discussion so far on section 4, with the exception of Deputy O'Malley's initial contribution, has been in relation to what would, in effect, be potential amendments to the section. Rather than to attempt to reply specifically to each one of these and deal with them in detail, I would prefer to say I will have them considered between now and Report Stage. If amendments are feasible we can introduce them at that stage.
As far as the point mentioned by Deputy O'Malley is concerned in relation to potential development of demarcation disputes as a result of this Bill, and the way in which section 4 is drafted, I do not think this is really likely. To do what I infer he had in mind, to give the board more specific powers in relation to matters which are already powers of other bodies, would create more demarcation disputes than will happen as a result of the way in which the Bill is drafted at present. The provisions in section 5 will provide a much more effective control over the actual things that are done in the area of science and technology by the subsidiary bodies rather than something done under section 4 which would tend to lead to a legalistic dispute about what one power meant as against another power and which power took precedence over the other power, and so on. Dealing with it in that sort of conceptual manner would aggravate demarcation disputes, whereas dealing with it in the practical financially controlled fashion which is the essence of section 5 is a more effective way of achieving the result we want.
There is a little bit of patchwork here and there, vested interests, and so on.
If you hold the purse strings you can do a lot.
Section 4 (4) (b) reads:
The teaching functions of any educational institute, college or school shall be deemed not to be restricted by any provisions of this Act.
First of all, to take the point made on the construction of section 4 (1) (b) and (e) it seems that under paragraph (b) the board may take the initiative to advise either the Government or the Minister but they may also be requested by the Minister. I take it that the Minister may request either for his own information or on behalf of the Government? I take it that form of drafting is intentional to convey that meaning? The substance then is on policy for science and technology and related matters. The crux of what Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Wilson have said depends on whether related matters apply specifically to the word "policy" or to science and technology. It seems on the face of it that no matter how you read it, " related matters " are restricted to matters related to policy on science and technology. If that construction is correct we come to paragraph (e) " to advise the Minister at his request on any matter related to science or technology ". Now " any matter " can be something very different from policy. For instance, the question of how to allocate the budget or what to promote in particular areas is clearly a matter of policy and that is clearly covered by subsection (4) (b) and, if it were to be brought within paragraph (e), it would be superfluous to have paragraph (e) and pro tanto then the submission made is correct.
We have to consider the possibility that the Minister might wish to get the board's opinion on somebody who has approached him with some particular project. That is a factual instance as against a matter of policy. If it were a matter of policy—take, for instance, the case we had before in the Army to promote the development of these Timoney vehicles that may be a matter of policy and would come in here in paragraph (b)—but if the Minister wished to be advised as to whether a particular bearing in the machine was or was not worth pursuing, then one would hardly say that was a matter of policy.
The words "worth pursuing" would imply a policy decision.
If it does Deputy O'Malley's case is completely made. I am not arguing a case. If the Parliamentary Secretary will bear with me for a moment I am trying to dissect the argument so that it can proceed. If, as is suggested now, any query in regard to the project is a matter of policy——
I did not say that.
I said " if ". That has been suggested to me anyway. Then it is superfluous. If it is not, it is not. To give a specific example from another area of which I had personal experience during the war. During the emergency, as a matter of Government policy and policy in the Department of Defence, a certain group were set up in conjunction with the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau to follow up certain matters and there were certain pretty broad but generally defined areas. It so happened that, in regard to one isolated and particular project, the experimentation had started to go round in a circle and the officers in the Department of Defence came to the conclusion that this should be terminated, that there was a useless expenditure of effort on that one item and it had got to the end of the road. In that case, it was necessary to make a direct representation to the Minister to get a decision on whether it was finished or not. I am trying to indicate how paragraphs (e) and (b) may be resolved. As far as I can see, if everything is a matter of policy to be construed, if the board is in effect concerned only with policy, then the submission made from this side is correct.
I am sorry for taking up the time of the committee but we are entitled to make our comments on the section. The main burden of what I want to say about the section is that the functions of the board, since they are largely policy matters, are difficult to define precisely and cutting across these other bodies is an inevitability. The sanction, as has been pointed out, lies in section 5 where the board, having the power to advise, will very strongly influence the allocation of funds, and funds are not only the sinews of war but they are the sinews of commercial development as well and science and technology are seen in this context. Therefore, the first thing I should like to comment on is the necessity for having a broad spectrum of representation on this board, the necessity for it to be something more than a purely technological body. My reason for expressing that idea is that, coming under the auspices of the Department of Industry and Commerce, there is the danger that this will be looked at purely from the point of view of technological development.
The whole intention of Parliament as expressed in this Bill when it is enacted would be contrary to that interpretation if one reads the sections themselves. Therefore, the composition of the board is a very big thing. The next thing is the difference between science and technology. In a certain sense, one may regard science as being academic to a large extent, the free chasing of knowledge, and the free exploitation of ideas. This has been the ultimate source of all technology in many ways and, without this type of development, without the Faradays and the Maxwells, and so on, we would not have electric power. Unfortunately, at present the two are intimately linked and one is reacting on the other. You cannot separate the two and this raises the problem I am going to mention in a moment.
A good example is the space race. There the whole project was essentially technological. From a scientific point of view, it was the application of scientific principles long established and well known. In spite of all the popular talk about it being a great achievement of science, it was essentially a technological development and achievement based on prior scientific information and scientific theory but, in the course of that project, the necessity for developing individual fields in a purely scientific way arose. Even where it did not arise, the development of the technologies immediately gave science the tools to expand in the scientific field.
A good example of that are computers. We have all got pocket calculators. These are cheaply available today because they were a technical necessity in the development of the space race. But having been developed from technology they are now essential tools for pure science and pure scientific research in universities and institutes and so forth. All this adds up to the following: you cannot draw a line between science and technology as such and they must both be viewed in the same context.
That brings us to the first point that I made already—the necessity for a catholic representation on the board. The next is that somewhere there must be a broad enough view so that it will not be confined to immediate technology. The one anxiety I would have with Deputy Wilson in this, whether it is a university or an institute for research, whether sociological or any other kind of research, is that a purely short-sighted utilitarian approach, which is supremely necessary where the development of technology is concerned, will not constrain the pure science side and the research side and the academic side, although I do not want to characterise it as completely academic. All that simply means is the ideas side, the flights of human intellect and understanding that eventually bring us the knowledge that we exploit in technology for the benefit of the community. That point is hard to express because of the impossibility of separating the two.
I would like to see—and this is my last point—a broadminded, far-seeing approach to the functions of the board, and particularly to the appointments to the board, and thereafter a care that the allocation of funds is not made on a too myopic basis, that the educational and research value and all the rest of what may appear to be purely academic lines of thought will not be forgotten. That is the comment I would make on the section as a whole. I do not think that very much can be done with it beyond what we have done here within the structure of the section. As I say, I find it hard to see that we could be very much more specific. All the dangers that we have mentioned on this side are there. All we can do is to appeal that this will be considered in the appointment of the board and the provision of funds.
Deputy O'Brien wants to speak, but before he does may I make a very brief comment? There have been references to paragraphs (b) and (e) of section 4 and the differences there. This is relating to the matter of advising the Minister at his request: Paragraph (b) states:
to advise the Government or the Minister on the board's initiative or at the request of the Minister on policy for science and technology and related matters.
I am sure we can assume that reads related matters vis-�-vis policy. It appears to me that, if it is thought desirable that the Minister should have access to information on any matter relating to science and technology, paragraph (e) is necessary. That is my interpretation of it. It would be ambiguous if we left in paragraph (b) and deleted paragraph (e). It gives the Minister access to information related to policy but there is ambiguity in relation to other information. If there is consent that the Minister should have access to any information in relation to science and technology, paragraph (e) is necessary. We need to reach agreement on that.
Could we drop the words " at his request"? That would broaden the matter completely. Deputy Wilson has just suggested that to me. I suggest that it should read: " to advise the Minister on any matter related to science or technology". That gives the board access to the Minister, or rather it obviates the board getting an answer from the Department when they want to approach the Minister saying that as this is not a matter of policy it is not appropriate to refer it to the Minister. With all due respect to Departments, this is a tempting kind of answer.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to that?
I have already said that I will consider between now and Report Stage all the amendments that have been suggested. Having been mentioned, they can be introduced by the Deputies in question on Report Stage.
Basically I want to talk about the same thing. The wording of (b) is a little woolly. I think it should read:
to advise the Government or the Minister on the Board's initiative or, at the request of the Minister, on policy or any matters related to the development of science and technology.
That is covering policy and any matters related to science and technology. It is changing the structure of the words to encompass the whole situation. I think we should include the words, " at the request of the Minister on policy or any matters related to the development of science and technology ". That covers the whole area.
I will think about that.
I want to make a general comment on the whole section because I think, with due respect to the Committee, we are getting a little pedantic about 4 (1) (b) and (e), the wording of which have not caused me any great concern. I think it is quite logical the way they are worded.
I must say that I agree to a great extent with what Deputy de Valera had to say and I hope that it will be noted, particularly in relation to his remarks about the composition of the board when it comes to be established. I want to put on the record my own feelings with regard to the role of the board because of the understandable concern which Deputy O'Malley expressed at the beginning of this particular area of debate.
If there is any group that behaves like prima donnas even more than politicians probably it is people en-engaged in science and research. Of course, there will be the kind of disputation to which Deputy O'Malley referred. With respect to him, he is looking for a perfect world; and, while this world may be perfectible, it is not perfect. We also live in a competitive world where the competitive ethic is eulogised and is the ethic on which society is based. We cannot expect the scientific world to behave in a co-operative or socialist manner when the rest of the world is behaving quite the opposite. For that reason, I do not think the board can be given a coercive role, nor do I believe that it would be desirable philosophically that it should be given a quasi-judicial role, as the Deputy suggested.
With regard to the flights of human imagination and understanding that Deputy de Valera referred to—anybody with a technological background knows what he meant—I would not like to see these being adjudicated upon by "a final arbiter", to use Deputy O'Malley's phrase. It is quite true that scientific research has on occasion been prejudiced and in fact hindered by official views of science and the official views of society. While Deputy Wilson advanced an example from the Soviet Union, may I say it is a very good country from which to take an example in proposing here the argument that there should be no final arbiter. For example, think of what happened to the Soviets in the whole field of biology because of Lysenko. Is that what we want? I do not think it is what we want.
I do not agree with Deputy O'Malley. It is my opinion that in specific areas it might be in the national interest to fund partly contradictory fields of research. That is not to say we are not going to have dead-end projects. Of course we will, but in the field of research this happens every day. You reach a dead-end and the value of that is you know that is not the road to travel the next time. You have got to search out the dead-ends. I think if one has quoted from the Soviet Union one might go a little further east and quote from China in respect of Chairman Mao who said "Let a thousand flowers bloom." We can afford only one or two because of our economic strength, but let us do that.
I think that section 4 really cannot be separated from section 5. It cannot be read in isolation. The most important wording in the Bill, which might meet a lot of the objections which have been raised, is contained in subsection (3) of section 5 which refers to "the accompanying commentary by the Board on national policy for science and technology ". This will be an annual event, which will go to the Government and, I assume, will enter into the decisions of the Cabinet at Budget time in the various Estimates.
In respect of Deputy de Valera's plea for catholicity, may I also make a plea that if this board is going to be catholic it will also be punctual, that perhaps we might get these reports issued not three or four years after the event but very much on time. Then I think the kind of co-ordination which Deputy O'Malley thinks desirable—and I agree that it is desirable—will eventuate.
Might I make one point? I think we should dispense with section 4 if possible so that we start the next meeting with section 5 because, if we revert to this in a general debate, at the next meeting we are going to run into all kinds of problems.
My reference to the VTUZ was not in connection with general science policy but with practical technological problems related to the industry involved.
A great deal, practically all of what Deputy Halligan said appeals to me. Talking about dead-ends—and what Deputy Halligan has said is very valid—there is just one addendum to that. In any school of research—I have two or three in mind at the moment but I think it would be wrong to mention them here; I am thinking of three university colleges in two universities—what develops depends very much on the leader of the school. In one particular case the school was practically nonexistent when a certain professor was appointed. He was well known in a particular field and has established a very reputable school.
Another factor which has to be taken into account is the personal element in regard to scientific research and the unfortunate fact that nowadays scientific research not only needs money; it needs organisation; it needs teams. It is a far cry since the days of Berzelius. When his students reported to him they were introduced to the kitchen, where they did their experiments. Nowadays you have research teams. Essentially the one horse job is largely over and there is always a substantial amount of expenditure. That depends on the personal factor and I would just like to add it to what Deputy Halligan said. They are all to be taken into account.
Question put and agreed to.
A point of information, the Minister is due back at the end of this week and presumably he will be in the House next week. When does the Committee propose we next sit? Perhaps next Wednesday would be suitable? I think we should make it 11 o'clock because we could get through a lot of work if we meet that early.
Is there any possibility of meeting at 10.30 a.m.?
There are three items specifically dealing with Industry and Commerce business on the Order Paper. They are due to be taken next week and in that event I cannot attend the Committee. I was away for two weeks and I made numerous requests that certain items of Industry and Commerce business would not be taken during those two weeks but the Minister refused to accommodate me in any way in regard to them. The Minister is now in Australia where, I understand, he has spent the lost four weeks and everything is done to facilitate him. I am not complaining about it. I am quite prepared to do it but I am entitled to make my protest against the way I was treated when I was away for two weeks. I was committed six months earlier to that but the Minister went out of his way to try not to facilitate me and forced business through in my absence.
What happens outside this Committee is not the concern of the Committee. One of the main reasons this Committee did not meet for the past two weeks was to facilitate the Deputy because of his unavoidable absence.
The Minister is in Australia.
My point is that this Committee facilitated the Deputy for the past two weeks.
Unfortunately, I have not a Parliamentary Secretary.
I will be unable to attend this day week.
There is one question about meeting at 10.30 a.m. The Order of Business is taken at that time. In fairness to people who may have an interest in it we should allow for that and perhaps meet at 10.45 a.m.
Yes.
The Committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 10.45 a.m. on Wednesday, 11th May, 1977.