Amendments Nos. 7a and 7b are related and I suggest that the two might be discussed together.
SECTION 6.
Before going on to discuss amendment 7a why is there not a provision for the periodic publication of the review?
I take it the board will publish when they decide to do so. I would refer to section 4 (3) (f):
to disseminate and promote the dissemination of literature and information relating to science and technology.
That is a very wide enabling provision. It so enables them, if they wish.
That seems to cover the dissemination of information about science and technology rather than to deal with the board's reviews and reports. I suggest that we amend subsection (1) by inserting after "conduct" the words "and publish".
The question of duplication of commentaries arises.
There are two different questions. The commentary is on national policy and the Minister argues it could be on the actual allocations. It involves a different section. It is a review of the effectiveness of the programmes—whether they are working or not.
I do not see any specific objection to the Deputy's suggested amendment.
I move amendment No. a7a:
In page 4, line 20, after " conduct " to insert " and publish "
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7a:
In page 4, lines 22 to 24, to delete subsection (2).
These amendments are for clarification. Subsections (1) and (2) refer to two separate functions. As drafted the text of the Bill covers the two functions in the one section. I am advised legally that that does not affect the separateness of the two functions, but it has come to our knowledge that the amalgamation of the two functions in one section gives rise to confusion. The simplest correction is to separate the two functions in two separate sections, which is the purpose of the amendments. There is no change of intent or of substance : it is simply a matter of best drafting.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.