Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 1991

Vol. 405 No. 1

Marine Institute Bill, 1989: Report and Final Stages.

Mrs. Barnes

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 25, after "social sciences," to insert "hydrography and oceanography,".

Before I refer to my amendment I would just acknowledge the Minister for the Marine opposite me. I hope that during our term in this area we will have very productive and constructive dialogue.

It was argued by the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Noonan, during Committee Stage, that the words proposed to be inserted were redundant and did not need to be part of the Bill as it stands. However, this Bill is of enormous importance, and I know that everybody in the House, particularly the Minister, will agree that the whole future of the marine, its protection and productivity, and the implementation of an Act that will allow research and development into the marine is vital, particularly taking two points into consideration. First, we are an island nation surrounded by the sea and I hope that more and more in the future we will be able to consider the sea as one of our main areas of productivity; second, when other industries are coming under tremendous pressure and are being cut back, the development of the marine must be one of our primary objectives, so that job creation in this area will make up for what is being lost in other industries.

I would urge that hydrography and oceanography be included in the Bill. We have not paid enough attention to these matters up to now. Within the whole context of the Single European Market and competition within Europe, the market with regard to fisheries will be very competitive. We have been told by world researchers that we have not yet begun to exploit the potential with regard to minerals and other products which come from the sea. Therefore, rather than hydrography and oceanography being seen to be redundant it is worth highlighting their importance and providing for them in the Bill. The Marine Institute should carry out research in this area and use it in a practicable and productive way. I urge the Minister to consider this matter.

Deputy Madeleine Taylor-Quinn asked on Committee Stage that hydrography and oceanography be included in the Bill. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, replied: "As requested by the Deputy I will have it examined". I would like to think that upon examination the Minister will accept this amendment.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Wilson)

First of all, I would like to put on the record of the House my great pleasure in having Deputy Monica Barnes, an intelligent, articulate daughter of Breffni, appointed as spokesperson in the House in matters of the marine. With her, as she said, I look forward to a combination of skills to improve matters in the marine area throughout her spokespersonship.

As Deputy Barnes has said, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, who has been bereaved and consequently could not take this Report Stage, indicated that he would examine the amendment as put down on Committee Stage and see if it was necessary to have it included in the Bill. I note what Deputy Barnes said about the importance of the sea and the sciences connected with it. I know what she said is true and we should be committed, as she said, to harvesting the sea and using it sanely in accordance with environmental principles for the development of productivity. I agree that hydrography and oceanography are two important sciences connected with the sea and I think that a distinguished Member from the Deputy's party had expertise in that area which my Department used in a number of projects.

I am not underestimating the importance of the two disciplines but the point was made on Committee Stage — and which I am now repeating — that those two disciplines can be quite adequately covered within the terms of the Bill and the scope of the activity laid down for the Marine Institute. It would be superfluous to include these two because they are already covered by the terms of the Bill.

Deputy Barnes rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it that Deputy Barnes is now replying to the debate? Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan and Deputy Gilmore are offering. I call Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I also welcome Deputy Barnes as spokesperson on the Marine for Fine Gael although I will miss Deputy Taylor-Quinn who contributed enormously, in my short time in the House, to marine affairs.

I support the amendment and the Minister's reply did not change my mind. It is of great importance to include the two words in the Bill and I cannot see why they cannot be applied to the Bill. This section very clearly states that "research and development" includes research into all pure and applied sciences, including economics and social sciences, investigations, tests, experiments, analyses and other studies and the application of science and technology to innovation and development. I cannot understand why the Minister cannot accept "hydrography" and "oceanography" because they are very important. Obviously the Minister will not reconsider his decision but I should hate to go through Report Stage of the Bill in the way we debated Committee Stage, when not a single word was taken from this side of the House in any amendment or form.

I am sure the Minister will agree that all the brains in relation to the Marine Institute and marine development do not lie on that side of the House. Our contribution has been modest but very productive in the sense that we tried our best to table amendments which complemented the Bill. I am disappointed that we are starting this morning with a Stonewall Jackson stance by the Minister. I had hoped he would have adopted a different approach. I support the amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

I am sorry to hear that the Minister of State suffered a bereavement and cannot be with us. I join in the welcome to Deputy Barnes. One of the liveliest debates on this Bill on Committee Stage concerned the location for the institute and, given the renewed advantage which the claim for Dún Laoghaire now has, I am very tempted to reopen discussion on it.

Mr. Wilson

What about Kingscourt?

An Ceann Comhairle

I would have to dissuade the Deputy from that notion.

Mr. Gilmore

Well, I did not get very far with it on Committee Stage so I had better leave it. Like Deputy O'Sullivan. I am sorry that we have lost Deputy Taylor-Quinn as spokesperson but I am sure we will be able to keep in touch with her exploits by listening to Saturday radio.

I am sorry that the Minister has not responded positively to this amendment. We had a very frustrating Committee Stage as not a single amendment was accepted by the Government. We were given a couple of indications that some amendments would be reconsidered for Report Stage and we hoped for a positive response from the Government which would have meant that Committee Stage was not as frustrating as it seemed at the time.

I am disappointed for a second reason in that the Bill is very narrow, much narrower than that recommended by the task force which was set up to recommend on the establishment of a Marine Institute. The definition of "marine" is very narrow and we discussed it on Committee Stage. The areas for research are defined in a fairly narrow way. The Minister's argument that the definition is all encompassing could equally be applied to the references to economics and social sciences which would qualify as applied sciences just as oceanography and hydrography qualify according to the Minister's all embracing definition. Yet they are specifically included to make a point that the role and research brief of the institute would include these areas. Deputy Barnes's case for the inclusion of hydrography and oceanography is very well founded and their omission, particularly the Government's explicit exclusion of them, may be interpreted at some future stage as meaning that the Marine Institute may not involve itself in these areas, which is greatly disappointing.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Barnes to reply on the debate to amendment No. 1.

Mrs. Barnes

I join my colleagues in sympathising with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, on his bereavement. I thank the Minister and the other Members for their very kind remarks. I have been thrown in at the deep end and I will need help and support.

Mr. Gilmore

Sink or swim.

Mr. Wilson

It is not the 40 foot.

Mrs. Barnes

I probably would have been excluded from that. I also wish to thank Deputy Taylor-Quinn for her thorough briefing and support here this morning. That also applies to the other Deputies and, like them, I express my disappointment because the Minister in his reply recognised that our arguments were valid. As we know, there are vast resources in the ocean which have not yet been tapped. Indeed, globally, it is seen as one of the great resources left to us because we have undermined and indeed destroyed so many of the other natural resources.

I commend the Minister for paying tribute to the fact that the two sciences of hydrography and oceanography are specialised and specialist. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is an area into which we did not have much input. As other Members said throughout the debate, we welcome the Bill and realise how fundamentally necessary it is to us because of our dependence on the sea and because we have not used it as productively as other countries, with far less water and seas available to them, have done.

It is my hope that the Minister will give us a pledge that he will provide the necessary investment, staff and resources for this institute to allow them carry out the research we want to see carried out but what concerns us on this side of the House is that since these two important sciences are not specifically named in the Bill they might not be given priority and the institute will be able to say with some validity, particularly if the investment and resources are not as generous as both we and the institute would like them to be, that these areas were not highlighted in the Bill and they have to give priority to those areas mentioned. It was with that in mind that we on this side of the House strongly argued in favour of the amendment on Committee Stage. We believe that the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, was moved by our arguments and we had hoped that the Minister would have been more positive in responding. I would suggest to him even at this late stage that it would be worth including this amendment as it would ensure that these very important sciences are given the right priority and importance having regard to the fact that little research has been carried out in these areas in this country to date.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Tánaiste has already spoken but if he wishes to intervene we shall hear him.

Mr. Wilson

I would like to make the point that just because they are not specifically mentioned it does not mean that they are excluded. I could not accept the principle that anything which is not mentioned specifically in the Bill is excluded because if I did I would be going against the meaning of the wording of the section. By mentioning hydrogrpahy and oceanography in the amendment she has put down, the Deputy is indicating that this is marine research. If we examine section 4 carefully we will see that marine research and development is mentioned in subsection (1) and in paragraphs (c), (f), (g) and (h) of subsection (2) while marine resource is mentioned in paragraph (d) and marine matters in paragraph (e). What I am saying is that I have no doubt that hydrography and oceanography are covered by the wording of the section. What leads me to accept that fully is the fact that both branches of marine science are being developed within the State and will come within the ambit of the Marine Institute.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, line 7, after "employment" to insert "and protect the environment".

This amendment was considered briefly on Committee Stage when the Minister of State gave an undertaking to consider it further before Report Stage. Since then the overall picture with regard to the body of legislation dealing with the environment has become somewhat clearer. The Environment Protection Agency Bill is now before the Seanad but that Bill does not contain any provision dealing with the marine environment. It would appear that its brief stops at the high water mark. The Sea Pollution Bill, which will come up for consideration in this House separately, deals virtually exclusively with pollution from ships and falls short of dealing in a comprehensive way with the wider issue of pollution at sea.

This Bill, which will establish an institute which will have responsibility for research and development, does not deal with the marine environment. The section that I seek to amend deals with the general functions of the institute which as far as they go are quite correct but it is disturbing that there is no acknowledgment of the environment. It seems that the functions as set out reinforce the traditional exploitative attitude towards the sea, which regards the sea as a great fish pond which can be exploited for economic gain or for its seabed resources for economic purposes.

There is no acknowledgment of the sensitivity of the sea even though we are now aware of the great dangers posed to the marine environment. There are many examples one could give. As we speak we are aware of the ecological devastation being caused in the Gulf as a result of the war and of what happens to the sea when it is not treated sensitively. We are also aware of the dangers posed by radioactive pollution in the Irish Sea and that an amendment which dealt specifically with the threat posed by Sellafield was not accepted by the Government on Committee Stage. We are further aware, and this matter has been raised with the Minister for the Marine, of the environmental problems associated with fish farming. It is a serious omission that there is no specific reference in the Bill to the marine environment. Such a reference should be included, otherwise I fear we will end up with a Marine Institute which will lay emphasis on research and development, with an over-economic bias, and not acknowledge the sensitivity of the sea and the problems associated with the marine environment.

I hope the Minister will respond positively on this occasion to the commitment given on Committee Stage to look at the amendment again before Report Stage and agree to accept it.

Mrs. Barnes

I agree with Deputy Gilmore when he says that this is one of the more important amendments to be retabled on Report Stage. He also outlined the progress which has been made in the area of environmental protection since then and argued that the responsibility for environmental protection could slip through the net of both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Sea Pollution Bill. One of the lessons we have learned at great cost to ourselves in the recent past is that we have exploited the natural resources of this planet to such an extent that they are not self-sustaining and not even money will make a difference.

If any lesson is to be learned for the future of this planet, and particularly for legislation which refers to the four-fifths of this planet, the seas and marine life therein, it is that whereas we have destroyed forests, we have acid rain, nuclear stations and radiation polluting our waters, we must make sure that at least part of the sea remains unpolluted and unexploited.

In the light of our experience, and of what can be done on the economic side, as Deputy Gilmore pointed out, short cuts can be taken. We can act in the short term without realising even politically that the long-term gains are not very popular, hence many of the environmental difficulties we are now experiencing. However, we have no excuse now. Failure to protect our environment up to now could be said to be due to ignorance and not realising the long-term effects. No longer can we make that claim and that argument is not valid now. Legislators in every parliament and forum in the world have a responsibility to give priority to protection of the environment. All legislation we introduce from now on must be considered in the light of the impact it will have on our environment, how it endangers it or how it protects it. The best way to emphasise this is to include a reference to it in the Bill. Then it will have the necessary legal standing. The protection of the environment must be seen as a priority in all our legislation.

In my short experience as spokesperson for the Marine I have been amazed at the very different stands that can be adopted. On the one hand there is a tremendous argument in favour of fish farming and on the other hand environmentalists may take a consistent stand against it. The whole progress and process of producing and harvesting from the marine are characterised by conflict, tension and argument. It is important that we as legislators make the correct decisions in such regard and this is where the institute will be of importance.

In an area so complex and to some extent unknown it is all the more important that written into the Bill must be a provision for protection of the environment. Fish farming, marine life, mono-filament netting, the future of species of fish, and the effects of radiation on such species, can be packaged in one term, protection of the environment in which these species will not alone survive but will be healthy. That is important not only for the sake of the species because none of us has the right to destroy any species, but for humans who are being urged to eat more fish for a healthy life and so on. It would be a fine irony if in urging healthy living and healthy eating we damaged the health of our people. As guardians of the environment we should do our best to ensure the health of marine life.

We will be pushing this amendment to a vote. I would welcome the Minister's understanding of the importance of the amendment and I hope we will not have to divide on it. I appreciate the Minister's co-operative stance on the Bill and I hope he will be able to agree with us and accept our amendment.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I supported the amendment on Committee Stage and I felt it was very important that it should be included in the Bill. In the short time since last we discussed the Bill, in November, awareness of the environment has grown particularly with oil pollution and so on. It is important that the protection of the environment be provided for in this section. For far too long we have seen abuse of the sea and marine life, particularly in coastal areas. For instance, rubbish has been tipped into the sea around our coast as it was considered to be a convenient way of disposing of it. It was a classic case of, "out of sight, out of mind". The sea was the natural rubbish bin. I hope those days have gone forever. People now realise that the sea cannot forever take our refuse.

I see the institute as a body to carry out research and protect the environment. That should be included in the Bill. We have coastal erosion and we have no exact policy on it. The institute could contribute enormously in this regard. The west coast has been battered by storms and on the south coast, in my county of Cork, terrible damage has been done by heavy seas. The institute have a role to play in protecting our environment.

The Sea Pollution Bill is at Committee Stage and the Bill we are discussing today dovetails into it. I see the institute working hand in hand with other authorities to protect the environment. Last November when the Minister gave a commitment to consider this amendment which was tabled by my colleague I thought that at least we were moving in the right direction. I am sure the Minister realises the importance of protecting the environment but he must put it in writing. I support the amendment.

Mr. Wilson

My Department have considered this amendment very carefully and they contend that the remit of the institute, as defined in section 4, is more than adequate to encompass the Deputies' concerns, which do them credit, about marine environment matters. I share those concerns. Under the Foreshore Act, 1933, and the various Fisheries Acts, apart altogether from the Act referred to by the Deputies, my Department and I have powers in this regard.

It is important that we have and exercise those powers because, as has been said, serious damage has been done to the environment in various seas. Despite the fact that, naturally, we here look at our faults and failings first, and rightly so, we are not that bad at all. The position in the North Sea is horrific from the point of view of the damage to the environment suffered by the sea, surrounded as it is by heavily industrialised countries. That has impacted not merely on the environment but also on fish supplies, although over-fishing is regarded as the chief culprit in what has happened in regard to the supply of fish in that area, where very strict limits have been set on the amount of fish that can be taken from the North Sea. In Europe in general and in the United States, I am glad that the very words "Atlantic fish" are regarded as a plus as far as exports of fish from this country are concerned because they regard our Atlantic coastline and fish taken therefrom as being free from pollution and contamination.

I agree with Deputy Barnes that very often ignorance on the part of bona fide people with regard to certain consequences and developments has caused damage to our environment here and there. For example, we have not the concentration of population of some other industrialised countries. Consequently, the onus is on us to be even better than most. For example, we have the advantage of not having, as in the Netherlands, 15 million people in an area the size of the province of Munster; we have a more scattered population. Consequently, we should be able to care for our environment to a greater extent.

I wanted to put on record that there are powers available to me, as Minister for the Marine, in the Acts I mentioned. Of course the Environmental Protection Agency is another body fully concerned with the environment, as its name implies. Consequently, the tendency would be for me and my Department to indicate that this was covered.

If Deputies Gilmore and Barnes could insert the word "marine" so that the words to be inserted would read: "and protect the marine environment" I think I could then accept their amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

I would be very happy to agree to that. I thank the Minister for his positive response to our amendment.

Mrs. Barnes

I too very much welcome the Minister's response and thank him. It is my belief that the addition of the word "marine" strengthens the amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment, as amended, agreed? Agreed.

Amendment No. 2, as amended, agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. I observe that amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are related. May I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 together, with separate decisions if required? Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, line 12, to delete "as may be specified by the Minister".

These are what I might call the apron strings amendments. They deal with the extent to which the Marine Institute is tied to the Department of the Marine and the Minister. We dealt with them at some length on Committee Stage. I do not propose to repeat extensively what was discussed then, but we did identify at that point, first that the institute — as it is being established under the provisions of this Bill — is considerably less extensive than the institute recommended by the task force in their report. The range of responsibilities the institute is being given — and we shall deal with this later to some extent — is considerably less than that recommended by the task force. Worse than that, the limited areas of responsibility the institute is being given are being tied solidly to the Minister and the Department of the Marine: for example, to carry out policy as may be specified by the Minister on Marine research and development; to co-ordinate and control proposals for marine research and development requiring funding from the Exchequer or from any State owned or conrolled body or such other body as the Minister may from time to time direct; to evaluate for the Minister proposals for marine research and development requiring funding from the Exchequer... as the Minister may from time to time direct; to advise the Minister on proposals for marine research and development requiring funding from the Exchequer or from any State owned or controlled body or such other body as the Minister may from time to time direct. What is the point in establishing a separate Marine Institute to undertake all this work for the Minister if, from time to time, the Minister must direct them virtually in their day to day activities? Would not it have been simpler for the Department of the Marine to have established a section within that Department which would undertake this work rather than establish a separate agency to do so if it is the intention that, from time to time, the Minister will direct them in the carrying out of what are their normal routine functions, such as co-ordinating and controlling proposals for marine research, comprising the body and soul of what the Marine Institute is established to do? Yet the carrying out of those functions will require the time to time direction of the Minister for the Marine. Of course this will render the work of the institute virtually impossible.

We should remember we are not just talking here about this degree of control by the Department of the Marine; we are talking about the chairman and members of the institute being appointed by the Minister and being removed by him. The funding will be provided by the Minister so it will readily be seen that there will be ministerial control at that level. There are the normal kinds of controls one would expect there to be over any State agency, that is the requirement to report and so on. Really, there is no need for this degree of the Minister's hand in the normal working of the institute.

In practice, when this institute will have been set up, after the Minister has cut the ribbon and been photographed on television attending the first meeting of the board of the institute——

Mr. Wilson

A good photograph, a good opportunity.

Mr. Gilmore

Indeed, and no doubt a very enjoyable day will be had by all concerned. I hope we will be invited. When all that is over and the institute has settled down to their work, when in the normal course of things the institute do not get the degree of funding they seek annually when they may want to carry out various research projects or engage in various types of activity, what will happen will be that the Department of the Marine will require them, on an ongoing basis, to constantly refer back to them. Every proposal will have to be resubmitted to the Department for approval or sanction before it can go ahead. That will have the effect of slowing down the work of the institute, possibly of their arriving at a position at which they will miss opportunities for carrying out various projects. Worse than that, it will mean that ultimately the final say so on whether a project can go ahead will not rest on the people most familiar with the project and the institute but with people in Leeson Lane who may not be familiar, with all due respects to them, with the detail of the project being proposed.

Mr. Wilson

Do not underestimate our expertise in Leeson Lane.

Mr. Gilmore

We are living in a world where this kind of bureaucratic centralism is being dissolved everywhere and——

Mr. Wilson

That is a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Mr. Gilmore

There is no mea culpa at all, I am just pointing out the facts of life. It is remarkable that this Government, at a time when all over the world this kind of referring back to the Department for centralised decision making is being dismantled, are insisting on putting into this——

Mr. Wilson

I wish my skin was as thick as that.

Mr. Gilmore

——Bill provisions which place the Minister's hand firmly on the board table of the institute. That should not happen. The Minister should have confidence in the institute we are now establishing and should let them do their work independently. They will be making an annual report. They will be dependent on the Minister for funding, so in that way he can exercise control. There is no need for this kind of detailed nervousness on the part of the Minister that the institute will go off and do something rash or possibly embarrassing to him. The Minister should have confidence in them and allow the institute to work independently. He should only exercise ministerial control by the normal means of the annual report and the financial accountability the institute will have. The Minister should give them the vote of confidence they deserve.

Mrs. Barnes

I agree with Deputy Gilmore that centralised power has been shown to have been disastrous. Experts react well to confidence in their expertise and their ability to use it. As Deputy Gilmore pointed out, when other countries are dismantling centralism because it has not been productive either in human or economic terms, we are displaying a tendency to centralise everything. Perhaps we are still coming from a very authoritarian system in which people in authority, particularly legislators, do not trust semi-State agencies or any body they are funding. I agree that we must get value for money and I can understand why Ministers and Departments worry. However, as Deputy Gilmore pointed out, there are enough controls and boundaries for all State agencies to ensure that if a body goes very much against political or national needs with regard to research and development they can be quickly controlled. As Deputy Gilmore said, these are the apron strings amendments.

The Minister holds the purse strings, which is also a controlling mechanism. The Minister must have such control but a strong argument may be made for giving independence and autonomy not just to a State agency but to a State agency involved in research and development requiring a high level of specialist knowledge and a need for expert opinion and research qualifications. Too much control on people carrying out that kind of work could be counter-productive; experts would be hindered in their work and they would see that the open market would welcome them, giving them far more freedom. Too many controls could be counter-productive in relation to the level of expertise and commitment we would get from employees of the Marine Institute. The people involved will have excellent qualifications, a high level of confidence, self-esteem and autonomy in relation to their work. Research demands that.

I hasten to emphasise that I would not suggest that this Minister would give in to force but we all know that in certain areas there are political constraints and demands which would make it expedient to order certain kinds of research which would not be advantageous with regard to the national interest or the long-term development of the Marine Institute. A Minister or a Government could have too restraining an influence on the institute. I include all Ministers and all Governments in this. We are talking about an institute which must have autonomy and independence in the long term to work in the best interests of the country and the marine environment.

I would not allege that this very independent minded Minister would succumb to such pressure, but we must legislate to close every loophole, weakness or abuse that might arise. We should trust and give independence to the experts working in this area. This would be more productive because they would enjoy their work and stay with it. I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment, and, knowing the vision of the Minister, I know he will seriously consider what we are saying.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I support what Deputy Gilmore is trying to do in his amendment. It is similar to what I tried to do on Committee Stage when I suggested that the institute would formulate policy with regard to marine research and development. If we are to properly develop marine research and development, the people involved should have independence. Marine experts should be able to independently promote policies to develop marine research in the future. This new legislation will be like a breath of fresh air so far as our antiquated marine laws are concerned. The institute and their employees would, of course, be subject to the Minister and the Government of the day but we should not stifle their productive approach in this area.

The drafting of the Bill appears to bring about a reversal of the role I had envisaged the institute would play. The heavy hand of the Minister will be ever present, preventing the formulation of new ideas. It is a manifestation of the "Yes, Minister" syndrome; we are subject to the Minister at all times. If we are in earnest about this Marine Institute and want to go forward to the year 2000 with good legislation and a good working arrangement between the institute, the Government and the Minister we should let these people do the job they are supposed to do. The Bill specifies that the institute are to carry out policy as may be specified by the Minister. I would hope the institute would formulate the policy and put it to the Minister, acknowledging, of course, that he is the man in charge. If we are serious about a Marine Institute which will be productive, we will have to give them independence, autonomy and the right to put forward to the Minister the policy they believe should be followed. I do not think the Minister should be able to tell the institute what they should do and where they should go.

Taking into consideration all aspects of our history, the Minister should go easy on this type of intrusion into the affairs of the institute. Deputy Gilmore's amendment compares with mine on Committee Stage and I will be supporting it. The Minister should look again at the matter.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The very nature of research demands a certain freedom. Unless researchers have an opportunity to explore freely and carry out the necessary work and study, we will not necessarily get the best results. To achieve innovative and creative results, freedom is fundamental.

I fully support Deputy Gilmore's amendment. At the earlier stage one of the major criticisms expressed on this side of the House was related to ministerial control of the Marine Institute. There is need for confidence, trust and a good relationship between the Department and the institute, which should be enhanced by civilised behaviour. It is not necessary to legislate for a supportive attitude between the Department and the institute. Putting this into legislation and almost dictating has a certain odium about it which is unfortunate. We need to strike a balance. I appeal to the Minister to recognise that those involved in research are people of tremendous skill and intelligence who have pride in their work. Above all, there is peer pride within their own group. They will be commended if they produce fine work and innovative results. Legislation will not get the best out of people in this situation.

There is no necessity to maintain this provision in the Bill. If in years to come the Marine Institute turned out to be a law unto itself, unaccountable to anybody and acting against the national interest and the overall development of the marine, the Minister would have it within his power to bring in tighter controls in amending legislation. This type of rigidity at the outset is detrimental. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment as he accepted the previous one and to show the same breadth of vision in this case.

Mr. Garland

I will not detain the House because this matter has been adequately debated by previous speakers. I broadly support these amendments. This institute needs to be as independent as possible of the Department of the Marine. I mean no disrespect to the Minister or to the Department, but if the institute is to carry out properly the various functions set out in the Bill it must be independent and able to take the initiative. There is sometimes a feeling that people should sit on their backsides until such time as the Minister directs otherwise. The Marine Institute must be innovative and must be able to carry out research or other work without waiting for the Minister to give instructions or directions.

The Minister should reconsider this matter and delete the words in the Bill which direct the institute to operate as specified by the Minister. I commend these amendments to the Minister.

Mr. Wilson

I reject all these amendments and all the detail. Deputy Gilmore in mentioning apron strings opened up a whole area of thought to me. I know he did subscribe to a philosophy at one stage where hooks of steel rather than apron strings would have been the correct terminology as far as Government was concerned. I thank the Deputy for joining the club. As the chancelleries over a whole area of Europe fell, by deft footwork Deputy Gilmore and others removed themselves from the danger and are now in what we call the libertarian phase of their political development.

Mr. Gilmore

We were never in any danger.

Mr. Wilson

The Deputy has moved from the ukase type of philosophy to a different one, as exemplified in the amendments he has tabled. They say the convert is always the most anxious to push the new faith, that the ex-poacher is the best gamekeeper. I suppose there is a certain amount of truth in this.

Mr. Gilmore

Is it true the Minister was a poacher himself?

Mr. Wilson

I do not accept the arguments here that the deletions suggested would improve the Marine Institute in any way or that the terminology of this Bill would inhibit in any way the scientific development. I have in the Department of the Marine a highly sophisticated science section which works under me. This is the ogre that is painted by the people who are trying to push these amendments.

This section has been very successful both in the internal development of marine science and on the European scene. It is linked to ICES, to international research. I can give an example from the most recent meeting of the Council of Ministers when fish quotas were established at the end of December. The research by the science section of my Department resulted in having a Commission decision on quotas changed because they had done up to date research on the availability of herring in the Celtic Sea. In practical terms the result was a considerable boom for the herring fishermen in the Celtic Sea.

I give that example to indicate that there is a thriving section in the Department involved already in marine research and development. That should be taken account of in the context of the deletion amendment we have here. It is important in the context of the European scene that the first person to become cognisant of developments, if there are such developments, will be the Minister. It should be possible for the Minister to call such developments to the attention of the Marine Institute when the vital interests of the country and its development are concerned.

There can be no question of a Minister or his Department interfering in purely scientific areas. The Minister, and the Department, should have power, since the institute are sustained by taxpayers' money, to indicate where research is necessary for the development of our economy. I want to put it on record that the independence of the board cannot be impugned; the research carried out by the institute cannot be interfered with. Scientists have their own principles, their own methodology, and would resent such interference. Nobody could sustain the idea that every loophole could be watched, as Deputy Barnes said, and that the Minister, and the Department, should be cast in the role of some kind of ogre or that everything should be closed off because of the danger of the Minister doing damage. There will be no interference with the freedom of the institute and it could not be deducted from the Bill that there will be.

I liked what Deputy Garland said, that scientists are not quiescent people. They are self-starters for the most part. There would be no question of scientists lying back waiting for the Minister to prescribe areas of scientific research to fill their idle moments. My experience with the science establishment we have in the Department is that there has been a quick response to indications from the Department. I am rejecting the amendments.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Gilmore to reply to the debate on his amendment No. 3 and related amendments.

Mr. Gilmore

These amendments are at the heart of what the institute will turn out like. They are about the independence of the institute. The institute first surfaced as an idea in this House when the previous Government established a task force to look into the possibility of establishing a marine institute. What we have in the Bill is a far cry from what that task force recommended. The task force first recommended that the institute would be an integrated body which would incorporate all the existing agencies engaged in marine research and development. That is not in the Bill. The Bill provides for some kind of federated umbrella body which will oversee the research and development work being carried out by the various bodies which are doing fine work.

Even in carrying out that kind of overseeing and co-ordinating role, the institute are not being given the freedom to do so. I am not in any way impugning the work or the integrity of the people in Leeson Lane. I have far too much respect for them to do that. I really do not think, however, that their time, or the Minister's time, should be taken up examining individual proposals for research that are coming forward through this body.

Let us look at what will happen in practice. We have about a dozen organisations, mostly State organisations, engaged in marine research. They will come forward with some proposal for research either on an individual or on a combined basis. It will then go to the Marine Institute for consideration before it is funded, because it is the Marine Institute who will decide on the funding. That is fine, but the real problem then is that the institute will not have the authority, in certain cases, to make that decision without the approval of the Department of the Marine. That is imposing on the institute an additional layer of bureaucracy which is unnecessary, which will tie up the institute, restrict their freedom and restrict the academic and research freedom of the staff involved.

I do not see, and neither does the Minister see, that his time as Minister should be taken up with examining proposals from the Marine Institute because he has other levels of control over them. In the first place, he decides on the money and that is the most powerful control of all. Second, if the members of the Marine Institute go off the rails and make some outrageous decision he has, ultimately, a further recourse open to him because he has retained for himself, within the provisions of the Bill, the right to dismiss the chairperson and the individual members of the institute.

For the life of me, I cannot see why the Minister also wants to retain this degree of detailed control on the work of the institute. I think it will bind-the institute hand and foot and will prevent it from availing of the opportunities that present themselves, such as funding from the private sector. Let us look at what the Bill says: the institute cannot enter into an arrangement with an outside body without the approval of the Minister. If some private company want to become involved with the institute in a joint venture for research in an area of marine resources, this cannot be done without the say so of the Minister.

There is the whole question of funding available from Europe. We have pointed out in this House that the delay in establishing this institute has possibly contributed to the fact that this State has not been availing to the degree that it should have been of moneys that are available from Europe for marine research.

Our amendments strike at the heart of what the institute will be about. These amendments will decide whether the institute will have a degree of autonomy and independence and will be able to go about its business in a normal way, or will we have a puppet that will have to refer back to the Minister for every significant decision that has to be made? These amendments are critically important to the future of the institute, and I wish that they be put formally.

Question proposed: That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 69.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies McCartan and Byrne.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, line 24, to delete "as the Minister may from time to time direct".

An Ceann Comhairle

How stands this amendment?

Mr. Gilmore

I would like the Chair to put it.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 7. I observe that amendment No. 8 is related. I am suggesting, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

"(i) to prepare long term projections of the requirements of Government Departments and industry for marine research and technological activities,

(j) to prepare a national programme for its area of responsibility and to implement or promote the implementation of such a programme following its approval,

(k) to organise the delineation, mapping and quantification of Ireland's marine and fisheries resources,

(l) to implement and organise the implementation of marine research and technology programmes designed to promote and support related industries,

(m) to arrange for the use, control and administration by the Institute of such facilities as may be transferred to the Institute,

(n) to provide such new facilities for carrying out marine research and technological development as it considers desirable and to provide for their use, control and administration, and

(o) to undertake national programmes of research and technological development in the areas of fisheries science, aquaculture, oceanography, marine geology, offshore and coastal engineering, hydrography and delineation of the Continental Shelf.".

This amendment arises from the report of the task force. One of the curious things about the Marine Institute Bill which has not been explained by the Minister of State on Committee Stage, or, indeed, by the Minister in the course of today's debate, is why the Bill before us falls so far short of the recommendations of the task force which recommended the establishment of a Marine Institute. I have already referred to some of the shortcomings in the Bill and the principal shortcomings are in the area of the functions of the Marine Institute. My amendment is taken directly from the report of the task force. It lists the functions recommended for the Marine Institute by the task force but which are not being given to the Marine Institute in this Bill. I cannot understand why these functions have been omitted from the remit of the Marine Institute.

I want to refer to the function in paragraph (k) of my amendment — Deputy Barnes' amendment also covers this function — in regard to the delineation, mapping and quantification of Ireland's marine and fisheries resources. We are in the absurd position in that, unlike smaller countries, for example, Ireland, we have not yet delineated our claim to the Continental Shelf. It is absolutely incredible that at a time when the world's resources are in decline and there is a great deal of talk about the need for economic development the Government have not staked a claim to marine resources in the Continental Shelf.

The reasons put forward over the years for not staking a claim to the Continental Shelf is that we do not have the resources to send people there to map it out and identify the exact extent of our claim. The Marine Institute should be given the function of doing this without delay. Not alone are we talking about an area of the sea which might be potentially important for us from the point of view of our economy but we are also talking about an area of the sea which could be potentially disastrous to us from the point of view of ecology or the environment. It is well known that the major military superpowers, in particular the United States, are using portions of the Continental Shelf to which we should properly have a claim to bury various kinds of used military weaponry and nuclear weaponry. This could be potentially disastrous for Ireland and other states along the Atlantic costline, as it is also known that this part of the Continental Shelf is quite volcanic.

We have a very strong interest in ensuring that our claim to the Continental Shelf is mapped out and delineated. It is a bit like a farmer who does not fence off an extra piece of land to which he is entitled but allows everyone else to use it. I do not think too many farmers in this State would fall into that category. It is remarkable that the Government have ignored the pressing need to delineate and map out our claim to the Continental Shelf, although other smaller states have staked claims to portions of the Continental Shelf to which we should properly lay claim.

This important amendment sets out the functions of the Marine Institute as identified in the task force report. These functions are very important from the point of view of our economy and the country generally.

Mrs. Barnes

I wish to refer to amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment which sets out the functions of the Marine Institute as identified in the task force report. Some of these functions are covered in a general way in the Bill.

Like Deputy Gilmore I believe the Marine Institute should be given the function of organising the delineation, mapping and quantification of Ireland's marine and fisheries resources. As an island nation we constantly face the threat of pollution of the waters around our coast without being able to take any action against those countries which cause such pollution. We cannot lay any claim to future marine harvests in the Continental Shelf until we have legally delineated Ireland's share of it and quantified Ireland's marine and fisheries resources. It is remarkable that the Government have not done this before now. We need to give greater consideration to the future opportunities which exist in this area, particularly as some of the resources and industries available to us until now are running out.

During the past 15 years much research has been carried out into the opportunities which exist in the development of marine fishery resources. It has been predicted that future food supplies will not come from the land but from the sea, which has not been exploited to the same extent as our land and forests. We need to give more consideration to the vast potential of our marine resources. I am sure that, like me, other Members of the House have read articles about the food which can be harvested from the sea if there is a scarcity of present food supplies.

I want to refer to our exploration rights. Some people argue that our natural gas supply which comes from the sea is only a small example of the resources there. From an environmental point of view, it is vitally important that we protect our supplies of this clean energy. However, we will not be able to do this if we do not delineate, map and quantify our share of the Continental Shelf and marine and fishery resources. We are not just talking about our fishery resources, and I will come back to them in a moment because they are of the greatest importance.

There are probably energy and mineral resources off our coast which we have not yet tapped. Resources found off the coasts of other lands may be an indication of the measure of resources around our coasts. There will be a race by people wishing to take up these resources and unless we define, delineate and protect our resources we could find ourselves invaded with those people. It is important that we tap our energy and mineral resources and carry out research into potential resources about which we have had exciting indications.

The Minister is right when he says that research is all important with regard to our fishery resources. This morning he told us that because of the scientific information his researchers uncovered and laid before the Council of Ministers, we gained substantially from what Europe was prepared to offer us. The Minister put his finger on the need for that type of research, delineation and protection. It is only by having our own scientific basis and delineation that we will be able to offset the exploitive attempts of others to gain access to what they would rightly say is not really mapped off, and that there could be a legal argument whether the resources belonged to this nation.

It is important that this amendment be included in the Bill, not only for the Marine Institute but also for our future policy and for the protection not only of our resources but of job creation for the present as well as for the foreseeable future. I hope there will be more enlightened research and discovery of our marine resources. By the end of this decade I think we will have identified resources that have not come to our attention yet. Marine research is in its infancy compared with research in other areas.

To the disappointment of Members on this side of the House, the Minister has been able to justify keeping powers in this area; he has assured us that he or his Department will not impinge on the rights or the work of the staff of the Marine Institute. If the Minister and his staff believe it is important to include those powers in the legislation then surely, in the context of the potential we are talking about, it is even more important to accept these amendments.

I support Deputy Gilmore's extended list. As has been mentioned, it is of great importance that we delineate, quantify and map Ireland's share of the Continental Shelf. This should be done not just for ourselves but for the future. Future generations will not forgive us if we do not make sure that this nation will not be encroached upon because of our lack of urgency in this matter. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I support these amendments, particularly paragraph (k) of amendment No. 7, which refers to the delineation, mapping and quantification of our marine and fisheries resources. It is very important that this be included in the Bill. It has been recognised throughout Europe that we have the richest fishing grounds in the western world, but we do not know how rich they really are. We rely to a large extent on information from other people. I realise that the Department of the Marine are a relatively new Department which have a lot of ground to make up and that the resources in the Department are not sufficient to establish themselves properly.

The Marine Institute are the ideal body to quantify our resources, particularly on the Continental Shelf. With the Gulf crisis, it is now more important than ever that this is done. For a long time we have foreseen a lot of disruption in the Middle East, and it is very important that our energy resources from the seabed be considered very carefully. The institute would be the ideal vehicle to do that work and to come up with the answers for which this Government and future Governments will be looking. From the fishing point of view, the institute could complement our Naval Service who work in the very difficult area of fishery protection, and so on. At times they have to work with antiquated maps because up to now we have not had the resources to map our seabed and the fishery activities in the Atlantic and the Irish Sea. It is very important that these amendments be included in a Bill of this nature.

The Minister has not spelled out very clearly who will comprise the institute. We presume they will be experts in this field, and I hope they will have a special interest in this area. It is vitally important that we quantify our marine resources from the seabed. I support the amendments put down by Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Barnes.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I support this amendment, which is the most important that has been put before this House. The Continental Shelf is an asset we have done nothing about. Deputy Gilmore's point about farmers letting land go to somebody else is very relevant. The Continental Shelf is like a big commonage; and it is only a matter of somebody putting up stakes, claiming it and having rights to it. In the context of international law we should consider this matter fully. We should recognise the importance and urgency of staking our claim.

In the fishery negotiations, particularly in relation to Spain, because the Spaniards traditionally fished our waters they established legal fishing rights. We were not in a position to argue against them and they were able to claim fishery rights in Irish waters because of traditional fishing patterns. All you need is another member state — or some other country — to decide that they will become involved in exploration in certain parts of the Continental Shelf over which we have not laid claim, to undermine this country. There will be pressure; because of the international reduction in natural resources many people will be very anxious to stake their claim and we know that there is a strong possibility of finding gas, oil and other mineral resources. It is very important for us in the national interest — and in the interest of future generations — to stake our claim early in regard to this matter. Deputy O'Sullivan referred to the Gulf, natural resources worldwide and the pressures which can arise at different times because of varying political circumstances.

This fundamentally important matter must be given priority by the Government because, up to now, sufficient importance has not been attached to it. There is a difficulty in relation to international law and the possibility of other countries laying claim to waters rich in resources because, as we have seen in the case of Spain, a similar pattern has developed over the years. That would be a major loss to this country and this House has a responsibility to ensure that it will not happen. Every child is fully aware of the suitability of the Continental Shelf for fishing and fish stocks, and it is important for the institute to do more research and to explore the possibilities which exist in that regard. The importance of this matter cannot be overemphasised. I hope that the Minister and the Department recognise it and that the Minister will accept the combined amendments tabled by Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Barnes because the future in relation to employment for young people in marine related and mineral resources which can be extracted from the Continental Shelf is in question. It is up to Members of this House to take a positive decision in relation to that matter.

Mr. Garland

I am in favour of both amendments. The amendment tabled by Deputy Gilmore lists the general duties of the institute. These are all very important, particularly paragraph (k), which deals with mapping and so forth. However, in that regard I prefer the amendment tabled by Deputy Barnes and, if the Minister is giving serious consideration to taking these amendments on board, perhaps the amendment tabled by Deputy Barnes could be incorporated in Deputy Gilmore's more detailed amendments.

Previous speakers dealt at length with the Continental Shelf. This is an extremely important matter to which, obviously, the institute should give tremendous priority. I commend these amendments to the Minister.

Mr. Wilson

I appreciate the fact that Deputy Gilmore read the report of the task force which was set up by the Fianna Fáil Party in opposition. Reading such an important research document cannot but improve the mind——

Mr. Gilmore

The task force was set up by the Coalition Government.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The former Minister, Deputy Paddy O'Toole, was in office at the time.

Mr. Wilson

The Taoiseach was the chief instigator and mover of the task force and, indeed, of the whole idea of the Marine Institute and, consequently, of this legislation. From listening carefully to the debate, I am struck by the fact that there is a fundamental difference between these amendments and previous ones. It is a question of interpretation; on one side they claim that the Bill is a vehicle for carrying all the range of activities mentioned in the amendments and others outside it — that is my fundamental position — but there is also the claim that we must specify the projects which will be dealt with by the Marine Institute. If I was convinced that the specifics would improve the Bill I would accept them without delay, even without any further discussion, but I am not convinced in that regard.

I want to refer to a danger to which I referred already, which would have the opposite effect from that which I know is the bona fide intentions of those who tabled the amendments to make the institute in their studies as comprehensive as possible, that if anything is left out in the specifics there is a kind of logical conclusion that if there is a whole list of specifics and something is not mentioned then it is excluded. That is the danger. The Bill, which was framed with great care and put through a minute examination after Committee Stage, adequately covers the range of activities of the previous amendments and the amendments which are under consideration at present.

If the institute, under the Bill without the suggested amendments, set themselves the task of studying the delineation of the Continental Shelf, to take an example from the amendment, is there anything in the Bill which indicates that they could not do that, that their powers were delimited by the Bill? I do not think there is and I do not think anybody could, with any shred of credibility, argue that.

The Continental Shelf was mentioned and its importance is accepted. The geologists have an interest, and as the Deputies said, so have the Department of Energy. There is a strong case for the Marine Institute to get involved in consultation with the Department of the Marine, the Department of Energy and the Geological Survey, which is the kind of activity covered in the Bill as it now stands.

Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan said that it is a young Department. They are, and the purpose of setting up the Department was to focus on the marine as a source of economic and social development. However, we must remember that there was formerly a section of the Department of Agriculture dealing with fisheries — it was known as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries — which had been looking after that area. Indeed, we are a little ahead of the posse in Europe in this respect in that very often agriculture and fisheries are tightly wed in that context, although it is not always to the advantage of the marine area.

We should not forget that for a considerable period we have been linked to the ICES organisation, that we have been making a scientific contribution to that organisation and have been deriving benefits from the results of their research. I have covered the main points made and have to oppose the amendments not on the basis of their merits but rather on the basis that they are unnecessary.

Mr. Gilmore

We are probably a nation of landlubbers; we have never taken the potential of these sufficiently seriously. This to some extent may explain why we lost out over the 12 mile limit, were sold out in the negotiations on the fish quotas and are still neglecting to claim our share of the Continental Shelf. What we are talking about here is one million square kilometres of seabed which could make this country a power in maritime affairs equivalent to Portugal, something which would contribute enormously to our role in the new unified Europe post-1992. However, because the Government have not yet claimed our share of the Continental Shelf it is being lost to us as other countries such as Denmark, Iceland and even the tiny Faroe Islands are claiming parts of the Continental Shelf which ought properly be ours.

Why has this not been done? The reason is that the Government have never given anyone this job and have always claimed that we did not have the necessary resources to delineate and map our share of the Continental Shelf. The Minister asked, what is to stop the Marine Institute from going ahead and doing the job. The answer is that a lack of resources will stop them. Indeed, that is what prevented those Government Departments and existing agencies engaged in maritime research from doing so, and it will not be done until such time as the Government decide to give some State agency this task. That is what we are asking the Minister to do. This Bill will establish a marine institute and we are pleading with him to give this institute the job of delineating and mapping our share of the Continental Shelf so that the Government can go and claim it.

There are two amendments before the House, one of which is a rather lengthy amendment in my name, amendment No. 7, but the Minister is not going to accept either of them. I take the point made by Deputy Garland that the amendment in the name of Deputy Barnes focuses exclusively on the delineation of the Continental Shelf and I propose therefore to withdraw my amendment in favour of hers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Barnes

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:

"(i) to delineate Ireland's share of the continental shelf, and

(j) to quantify, map and delineate Ireland's marine and fishery resources.".

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 73.

Tá

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Flanagan and Cotter; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy Monica Barnes.

Mrs. Barnes

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 12, line 15, after "Minister" to insert "and the inventor, under a share agreement to be determined by the Board of the Institute".

This has some bearing on what we discussed this morning. I hope this will be an expert, hard-working institute whose researchers and staff will undertake much research leading to innovations over the next few years. We recognise already that a huge amount of research and development into the overall marine area is at an embryonic stage compared with what can be researched, discovered and developed.

The amendment in my name was one which appeared in the name of Deputy Taylor-Quinn on Committee Stage, when the point was made strongly by Members on this side of the House that, in order to retain the expert staff and scientific experts in this institute, they must be rewarded. This will mean that there must also be provision for a degree of independence, autonomy and acknowledgment so that such staff will not merely work productively but will also — and this is very important with regard to scientific innovation or discovery — undertake the inevitable risks involved in their work, particularly with regard to discovery. It is essential that, when such a scientist or researcher provides information or makes an innovative discovery which will be of tremendous value not merely to the work of the institute but to that of the Department and the nation as a whole, there be adequate acknowledgment of and reward for that effort. We must go beyond the mainstream work of the institute, because not to acknowledge or reward the personal, qualitative element of such scientists' endeavours and innovations would be a huge disincentive to them. Indeed, such incentive is vital to the retention of such staff within the institute rather than moving to independently-funded, specialist research institutes where they might be highly rewarded because of their being more profitable and so on. We must endeavour to retain the qualifications and commitment of such staff. We must also acknowledge any breakthroughs which would be of immense value to society on the part of such people and ensure they are recompensed, as should be the case also with any group, who should be given a financial reward to maintain their motivation to produce work of the highest quality not only for the good of the nation but also at a personal level. We should remember that we all work at a level of personal regard, so that that incentive is vital to all concerned.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I support this amendment. I am glad that Deputy Barnes did refer to a group because that was a stipulation I had in an amendment on Committee Stage, that any group effort be recognised. It is important that people making such discoveries be recognised in a practical way. Indeed, such provision will create an incentive for people to work within the institute and remain with it in the knowledge that their efforts will be recognised at Government and national levels.

Mr. Wilson

I recognise the thinking behind the amendment tabled by Deputy Barnes, supported by Deputy O'Sullivan. Of course the general principle is that, just as the labourer is worthy of his hire, so the scientist is entitled to recognition of the results of his or her labours. Always it has been a very delicate problem encountered within institutes and universities. The United States third level institutes, in particular, have been pioneers in this field, whereas Europeans generally have been more conservative or cagey, afraid of the self-interest of scientists overriding the interest of the institute or the public interest, as the case may be. The Americans have brought it to a fine art. A discovery such as the one adumbrated by Deputy Barnes in elaborating on her amendment has brought a very substantial factory to my constituency. I know from my research that its origins came from a third level institute in the United States — to be precise the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — leading to the results of a discovery made there establishing a worldwide company which has brought benefits to many areas here but specifically to my constituency. The famous and evergreen economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, wrote a novel which I read over Christmas in which he dealt specifically with the responsibility of an individual to the institution and whether he could make a lot of money for himself, a satiric novel dealing with much the same theme. Sections 22 (2), (3) and (4) deal with the point I am making. For example, section 22 (4) reads:

The Institute may, subject to the approval of and at the discretion of the Minister and the Minister for Finance develop a scheme for the payment of bonuses or royalties, out of moneys at the disposal of the Institute, to members of the staff of the Institute who have made important discoveries or inventions, or have materially assisted in making such discoveries or inventions.

My contention is that the interests of the individual, of somebody who has not merely added to human knowledge but who has invented something which, as applied, would succeed in earning wealth, should be covered by the provisions of this section. I appreciate that the Deputy's amendment, and those who spoke to it, are prompted by what motivated section 22.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

A serious problem in the past decade has been that some of our most intelligent and talented people have been enticed out of the country by the offer of financial reward. This amendment is very important in the light of recent history. If intelligent and talented people are not encouraged to work in the public sector the country will not have the benefit of the best brains available. In order to keep those people we will have to look at the bread and butter issue, which is reward for work done. Most researchers are highly motivated, with a sense of purpose. They should be rewarded when they produce the goods. Under this Bill a person involved in research in the Marine Institute will only get a regular salary. That is not sufficient if we wish to keep those people. I hope the Minister will see the value of this amendment. To get the full benefit from the Marine Institute we must offer marine researchers some incentive, a reward for coming up with a good invention or for doing good research work. While I appreciate the Minister's point of view, I do not share it. In the national interest it is important to consider this matter, and I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment tabled by Deputy Barnes.

Mr. Gilmore

I support the principle of the amendment. I support the principle of the labourer being worthy of his hire and the principle that if somebody makes a discovery or invents something that generates income he is entitled to a share of the benefit. The difficulty is in identifying who has made the discovery or invented something. It is not unknown in academic circles, for example, for a head of a department to publish as his or her own work, work which was done by research students. In relation to a discovery or an invention it may well be that the apparent discoverer or inventor was building on work that was done by subordinates or predecessors. That is just a word of caution I would build into this. Those who contribute to the discovery or the invention, whether they are people who were previously involved in the research or who were involved in a subordinate or in an ancillary way, should be entitled to a reasonable share of the benefit.

Mrs. Barnes

I take Deputy Gilmore's point. However, if my amendment is included, that abuse will, I hope, not occur. The Minister realises that an incredible amount of innovation and invention has come from the US due to their reward system. Many institutes who can profitably exploit inventions can offer attractive packages so that we could lose our staff. The Minister will appreciate a statement made on conflict and copyright — to every cow its calf and to every book its copy.

Mr. Wilson

An Ulster man.

Mrs. Barnes

Indeed, an Ulster man. That was a very fair and judicial statement during a high time of conflict. I would like the Minister to take that on board and accept the amendment I am putting forward——

Mr. Wilson

Is dóigh liom go bhfuil——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

Níl cead agat. Sin an t-ordú. Is Deputy Barnes pressing her amendment?

Mrs. Barnes

No, I shall withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 12, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

"3. One-third of the members of the Institute shall be elected by the staff of the Institute in accordance with the provisions of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977.".

I am conscious of the time, and to expedite matters I wish to formally move this amendment which we discussed on Committee Stage. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the principle of worker participation. It is well enshrined now in many State organisations, that the employees have the right to elect a number of members to the board of directors of the body. That is what I am seeking here. The mechanism for doing so is provided for in the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act.

Mr. Wilson

The best advice I have indicates that the provisions of the Worker Participation Act do not apply to this institute and it would require an amendment by the Minister for Labour to bring it in, consequently I must oppose the amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

In the context of the Minister for Labour reviewing the provisions of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, will the Minister bring to his attention the desirability of having that Act or some amended form of it apply to the Marine Institute?

Mr. Wilson

I will bring to the attention of the Minister the sentiments expressed by Deputy Gilmore.

Acting Chairman

How stands the amendment?

Mr. Gilmore

In view of that generous offer by the Minister, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wilson

An féidir liom cúpla focal a rá?

Acting Chairman

No.

Mr. Wilson

I want to quickly express, on behalf of the Department, on my behalf and on behalf of the Minister of State, who has been bereaved and could not be here to finish the job, my thanks and appreciation to the Members who contributed to the discussion from the introduction of the Bill to its final Stage. Lest I appear not to have appreciated the work done by Deputy Taylor-Quinn, I include her in that. I thank Deputy Barnes, Deputy O'Sullivan, Deputy Gilmore, Deputy Garland, and all those who contributed when the Minister of State was in charge of the Bill.

Acting Chairman

As it is now 1.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil on this day: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

The Bill, which is considered by virtue of Article 20.2.2º of the Constitution as a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann, will now be sent to the Seanad.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.