I move amendment No. 7b:
In page 4, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
" 7.—Ay institution for which provision is made in the Science Budget shall supply to the Board such information in such form and at such time as the Board may require."
I move amendment No. 7c:
In page 4, lines 25 and 26, to delete the words "institute conduct and promote" and substitute "institute and conduct".
On the question of " institute, conduct and promote ", I would agree to leaving out " promote " but I am a little concerned about the board's power to institute and conduct research. Surely the board are not going to find themselves turned into yet another research institution. The board could institute research, but having regard to their functions as defined in the other sections, and particularly their functions under section 5, which are their important functions, I would consider it a confusing step if they were to digress, say, to follow up the possibility of independently exploring solar energy. I would see the board's instituting in the sense of bringing agencies together that would be interested in that—from the ESB to the universities. However, the wording suggests that the board themselves could carry out and conduct research. I would hate to see them turning into another research institute.
So would I. Let me put this into context first and then come back to Deputy de Valera's point. This amendment is consequential on the specific provision under section 4 (1) of a new paragraph (i) which provides for the promotion of research; in fact, this is something we discussed previously. The specific provision was intended to be inserted by amendment No. 5a, but at a previous meeting of this Committee it was agreed that amendment No. 5a could be recommitted on Report Stage. The answer to Deputy de Valera's point is that this is a function of last resort. One could visualise circumstances where it was necessary as a matter or urgency to respond to a problem. The gamut of existing organisations is considered and none of them is the appropriate one to do it, and you have to get some development off the ground there and then, and it would not be excluded totally from the power of the board to get such work off the ground. It would not be building parallels to institutions that already exist, and if it was an area of work that was going to become a major one, there would have to be a new institution.
To pluck an example out of the air—it might turn out to be a very bad one—we might at some stage need to have an institute on communications information theory, that sort of thing. You might need in the very short term on, say, an international communications issue, a satellite issue, some quick research, and there might be no appropriate place for it. In the long term there would perhaps be an institute of communications, but taking what is purely an example—because you might be able to locate that in some other organisation, for instance, IIRS—of something that could not be solved in any other way, then the board are not excluded from the right to conduct research. But it is not in the business of duplicating what exists, let us say, in agriculture, industry and so on.
An area where this has been real in the past under present arrangements is the marine area, because there are places where you would want to move quickly. However, if there ought to be an institute in the long run, then such work would be hived off.
There is a very imperfect precedent on the lines the Minister is thinking. In 1940 or 1941 the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau was set up, and I had a good deal to do with that body myself. It functioned very much in the way the Minister is describing now. It was in a position to direct what was done. Research projects were done by the Army, and the institute was behind it and arranged facilities and all that. There was other research done for firms and the universities were harnessed in. It acted as a co-ordinating and empowering body and a motive force in getting the thing done, but it did not itself conduct research.
I think the Minister is thinking of something of the same type of function here, but since this is statutory, I was just querying the word "conduct" in that way. I do not know whether any other word could be got to convey the idea, but certainly that experiment was reasonably successful. I would visualise this board operating in rather the same way, and that is what I read into the Minister's answer.
I think the main thrust of the board is balance, to see that things are kept in relationship, and nothing is duplicated. We have had examples of duplication. For them, therefore, to set up their own piece of duplication would be, in practice, unthinkable. But that circumstances could arise where it might be necessary to initiate something quickly is perfectly thinkable. It has happened in the past and it may happen again.
Of course, the saver there is " with the approval of the Minister ". That is important.
Absolutely, but it is, I emphasise, a function of last resort.
What is the actual reason for the amendment? We skipped that.
The word " promote " has been dropped.
The words " institute " and "conduct" seem to me to be stronger than the word "promote". "Promote" could mean getting someone else to do it; "conduct" seems to suggest carrying it on yourself.
Amendment No. 5a, which has to be recommitted on Report Stage, says "to promote research", and since the "promote" is already there as a separate amendment, it is redundant.
