An Bille Toghcháin (Leasú), 1961. - Industrial Research and Standards Bill, 1961—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (3), page 5, line 19, before "for" to insert "or institution", and in line 20 before "on" to insert "or institution".
I have tabled a number of amendments to this Bill and I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible. I gave the background to the amendments in my speech on Second Reading. Subsection (3) of Section 6 reads:
The Institute may arrange with any person for the carrying out by that person on behalf of the Institute of any research, investigation, test or analysis referred to in subsection (2) of this section.
I think it necessary to provide that the Institute "may arrange with any person or institution" because, as I showed in my Second Reading speech, it will be necessary for the Institute to rely on existing institutions, especially the universities, for the carrying out of much of the applied research that is so necessary to be carried out in conjunction with the routine research. I do not think it would be regarded as being quite legal that the Institute should be able to arrange with a person in the university to carry out research. The arrangement should come more strictly through the institution concerned. The approval of the institution would have to be got. Perhaps the Minister could say whether the section, as it stands, can be extended as far as the making of arrangements with institutions are concerned?
Under the Interpretation Act, 1937, the word "person" is defined as including any body corporate, whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole and an unincorporated body of persons as well as an individual. It is not, therefore, considered necessary to amplify the section.
In that case, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
This section is really the kernel of the whole working of the Institute. The functions are listed in Section 6. Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Section 6 is:
(a) to undertake, encourage and foster scientific research and investigation with the object of—
(i) promoting the utilisation of the natural resources of the State,
I take it that "the natural resources" includes very much the agricultural resources of the State. Subsection (4) of Section 6 says:
The functions of the Institute shall not include any function assigned to an Foras Talúntais by the Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1958.
But the functions assigned to An Foras Talúntais are rather general and deal only with agricultural research in the general sense. We got very lucid explanations from the former Taoiseach, our present President, which showed that the Institute was not concerned very much with marketing but with the other end of research. That was emphasised further in the debate in relation to An Bord Bainne. An Bord Bainne has quite heavy responsibilities as far as marketing is concerned. There does seem to be a crossing of functions as between this Institute and An Bord Bainne and I should like to know how these can be dovetailed into one another. The Agricultural Institute has the last word on agricultural research. I should not think this new Institute would be very much concerned with the type of agricultural research that would be carried out by the Agricultural Institute but it definitely will come very much into the picture with the type of marketing research that will be carried on by An Bord Bainne.
I would say that, in general, the Institute will not overlap the work. Section 6 (4) makes it clear that the activities assigned to An Foras Talúntais are removed from the scope of the activities of the Institute. Any border-line cases will have to be settled between the two Institutes. I do not think there is need for any such legislation in regard to it.
There might be some research into some element of the natural resources of the land which would be put aside by An Foras Talúntais. If I remember rightly, the activities of An Foras Talúntais under the legislation cover a very wide range. I imagine it would have to be left to the good sense of the two Institutes to avoid overlapping. I do not believe that if An Foras Talúntais said some particular type of work was outside the scope of their work, or that they had no time to do it, there would be any difficulty.
This provides for any clash between An Foras Talúntais and the new body. My whole point is that there is a far greater likelihood of clash between An Bord Bainne, which we set up a few months ago, and this new Institute. An Bord Bainne is specifically charged with the marketing of agricultural produce and everything that goes with it. I could see that there would be a very large realm in which both the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and An Bord Bainne could co-operate very effectively.
There is nothing in this Bill which prevents them from co-operating. This Industrial Research Institute is very far removed from anything connected with agricultural marketing.
The Minister is wrong. It is a cod to say it has nothing to do with anything connected with agricultural marketing. For instance, if a new process were discovered by which cheese could be made, if a new method were discovered whereby milk could be processed, if a new method were discovered whereby the by-products of cheese, whey, and so on, could be processed, it might fall to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards to carry out investigations; that is their function. The fact that the word "industrial" is in the title could not possibly exclude matter relating to agriculture. Is it not true that once the product leaves the farmer's hands, the further processing and further dealing with it could be defined, if one desired to do so, as industrial work? The Minister has gone completely wrong in his statement. It is not fair to Senator Quinlan to suggest to him that agriculture is being excluded. I do not believe it is being excluded.
I believe it is quite foolish on the part of the Minister to say so because this Institute will not undertake marketing research in any shape or form. It will do work within the terms of the Act, if asked to do so, in relation to an agricultural product such as it has been doing in relation to the quality of Irish flour. That work has been passed over to An Foras Talúntais and they are now doing it. It was done before by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. It will not do marketing research. There need not be any conflict.
Senator Quinlan's point was that An Bord Bainne is a marketing organisation. If there were a requirement for standardisation of some new product, surely this Institute, being an Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, could facilitate An Bord Bainne in such investigation to see if such an article is up to standard?
Yes, of course. The Minister says it cannot be done.
Senator Quinlan confuses the issue by referring to An Foras Talúntais, a separate organisation which can do research on any kind of agricultural matter, even on marketing. Now we have a Bill dealing with the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. If any organisation in the country requires standardisation of a product which we want to export, including An Bord Bainne, surely the Institute here, dealing with standards, would facilitate any organisation, set up by the State, to produce that standard?
Come over here: you are with us.
There is no necessity for me to go over there. I am trying to teach you sense.
I did not introduce An Foras Talúntais into this. If Senator Ó Donnabháin will turn to subsection (4) of Section 6, he will read:
The functions of the Institute shall not include any function assigned to An Foras Talúntais by the Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1958.
Therefore, it is in the section. I need not apologise for bringing it in. If it is necessary to regulate functions between this new Institute and An Foras Talúntais I would point out that the problem between this new Institute and An Bord Bainne is much more ticklish.
I just raised the matter to draw attention to it and to express the hope that right from the beginning care will be taken to see that those two bodies work together, and that many of the standardisation processes required for agricultural products will involve this new Institute. It would have been far more germane if in subsection (4), An Bord Bainne were mentioned, with some overall deciding authority between An Bord Bainne and the new Institute when they overlap or conflict.
Can the Senator not read? Now he says it would be better if An Bord Bainne were put in. Subsection (4) excludes An Foras Talúntais.
I want to refer back to a matter with which I dealt on the Second Stage. I am sorry the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not here because he would be interested to hear the results of research which I made. On the Second Stage, I was talking about the quality of shoes manufactured in this country and there was an outcry by members on the Government side that this was sabotaging Irish industry. I want to make it quite clear that we will never get anywhere in establishing proper standards in Irish industry, if we are not prepared to say that Irish industry in particular ways is falling down on the job.
Secondly, if members read the journals of the chambers of commerce and a journal like Development and the speeches made by presidents of Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and so on, when they are talking about the Irish position vis-à-vis the Common Market there has been hardly one in the past 12 months which has not commented adversely on the laggards in Irish industry who have availed themselves of protective tariffs and quotas and are not in a position to deal with competition which will arise, if and when we enter the Common Market.
I was dealing with leather and I was complaining that the main requirement which I felt any person buying shoes should expect to be fulfilled, that they should keep out water, was not regarded by some manufacturers as being reasonable. They felt it was an unreasonable requirement that shoes should keep out water. I could not find the particular letter I wanted but I have one which deals with the statement that the shoes were not guaranteed to be waterproof, that was after four days' use in the streets of Dublin and not on a golf course as the Minister was inclined to suggest the other day. I have some evidence that that is a view held in relation to Irish leather. Apparently the manufacturers of shoes who avail of our natural resources in the form of cow and calf hides do not think that leather which will keep out water can be produced.
As I mentioned on the last occasion, I wrote to a manufacturer of a pair of shoes which I had purchased telling him my grievance and that I had to keep an eye to the weather forecasts on Radio Éireann news bulletins before wearing the shoes. I paid between 60/- and 70/- for these shoes. I wrote on Seanad Éireann notepaper so that the manufacturer would be aware that he was dealing with somebody who was in a position to deal with him at a later stage. The manufacturer replied on 14th of March and in the interests of the workers in that industry, I shall not disclose the name. I have no doubt that the people here on the basis of this letter would never buy another pair of shoes from that manufacturer if I did. Being broadminded, I fitted on some shoes since——
I think the Senator should not read from the letter unless he is prepared to lay it on the Table of the House.
I am certainly prepared to do that.
The Senator understands the rule about not reading letters here unless the Senator reading them is prepared to lay them on the Table.
I shall most willingly do that. The letter read as follows:—
Dear Sir,
With reference to your letter of 7th instant, I fail to understand what you expect to achieve by (a) the use of Seanad Éireann notepaper, (b) the use of sarcasm.
If the former was to impress, it has failed to achieve its object.
That is the use of Seanad Éireann notepaper. Now we proceed to get a homily on the procedure of manufacturers.
The normal business procedure in dealing with complaints regarding manufactured articles is to return them to the person from whom purchased.
I had actually bought them 150 miles west of Dublin and I was not going to send them to Castlebar, where I bought them, so that they could be transhipped to a place in the east of Ireland.
Would the Senator indicate which is the actual letter and which is the running commentary?
And also on what section, on Committee Stage, this arises.
I am talking about the utilisation of natural resources and how the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards can improve the process of tanning leather so that shoes will not produce this kind of result. The letter goes on:
If they consider the complaint justified, they will return the article to the manufacturer.
The tone of your letter does not encourage us to short circuit this procedure.
Well, it was not designed for that purpose——
We suggest you proceed in the normal manner.
I never had time to reply to this man, but I had intended to send the whole correspondence to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for his information. The letter concluded:
Incidentally, you might like to know that the uppers of the shoes are made from French calf——
that is, not Irish leather.
How is this related to Section 6?
It relates to improving the technical processes of leather made in this State—sub-paragraph (ii), of paragraph (a) of subsection (2). If I might be permitted to read the last sentence, it says:
Incidentally, you might like to know that the uppers of the shoes are made from French calf, and, no doubt, you are aware that the soles are made from native Irish leather, as required by Dáil and Seanad Éireann laws.
Therefore, the justification given by this manufacturer was that I could "lump it" and pay 70/- for the purchase of shoes which let in water after four or five days because I was party to the law which compelled them to use Irish leather.
Did the water come through the uppers or the sole?
I did not embark on such a minute examination because I got a very heavy cold as a result.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce wanted to nail my hand to the desk on the last occasion. I want to make it quite clear that that does not represent the normal behaviour of Irish manufacturers and that is not the normal standard. Here is a gentleman writing this letter and here is a firm producing goods behind protective tariffs and the Minister for Industry and Commerce should ask the Institute to see to it that they make better use of Irish leather, or if he is not prepared to do that, to see to it that the firm does not derive any benefit from tariffs or quotas. I think the Irish people are entitled to protection from that kind of inefficiency. I hope this Institute in the discharge of its functions will ensure that people of this kind will have no excuse for saying that the raw materials provided from the natural resources of the State are inadequate from the point of view of manufacture. So much on that aspect of the matter.
I want to return to something more——
I want to return to something which will be more at home for some of us. It is all very well to establish An Bord Bainne, bord this and bord that in an election year but the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, if it is to be of some practical use, ought not, as I pointed out on the last occasion, engage in fixing standards of linseed oil, turpentine and paint dryers. These are not of great concern to the people. They do not affect the cost of living. What I want to see this Institute doing is making a first-class effort to ensure that the commodities in everyday use among the vast majority of the population of this country will reach such a standard that there will be no cause for complaint about the quality of the goods manufactured here. Indeed, likewise, I should like to see some kind of an agency which will see that imported goods are not the dumpings of foreign manufacturers.
I want to refer to sub-paragraph (g) and the following sub-paragraph of subsection (2) of Section 6. Can the Minister tell us if the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards will be able to guarantee that a saucepan, a pan or any everyday commodity purchased by the ordinary housewife reaches a certain standard? In Britain, there is a voluntary body. It is one of those admirable voluntary bodies which does such good work. The Minister might not be interested in this and Senator Lenihan knows nothing about it.
We know all about it already. I do not need to have a lecture from the Senator.
I am glad the Minister takes an interest in these matters.
The setting up of another institution does not arise under this section.
We find certain imported commodities which have the seal of the Good Housekeeping Institute on them. In relation to commodities manufactured in this country, will the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards under sub-paragraph (g) of subsection (2) of Section 6 have power to set its seal on Irish manufactured goods in the same way as the Good Housekeeping Institute sets its seal on particular goods in Britain?
I should like to deal with the question of footwear. We could have quite a long debate on the quality of Irish goods, if we wanted to this evening. We could pursue the matter, with the permission of the Cathaoirleach, indefinitely; but since Senator O'Quigley spoke about shoes, I must say that I am worn to a shadow trying to wear out shoes of Irish manufacture. I love to wear a pair of old battered shoes that do not leak, but my wife will not let me. They are all Irish-made. Having said that, I should point out that the volume of exports of footwear has enormously increased. That indicates a general improvement in the quality and design of shoes.
It is quite evident in connection with all manufacture in this country that improvement is possible and that there must be some bad manufacture. That can be equally found in any other country. The working of the consumers' association in Great Britain reveals that in a country with centuries of industrial tradition, grossly inadequate commodities are sold on the market there. The same thing will be found in other countries.
We have our own problems to face as a newer industrial country. I should like to clear away the Fine Gael mists from this debate in regard to tariffs and quotas. Fine Gael have a wonderful habit of implying that there is something wrong about tariffs and quotas but they do nothing about removing them when they get into office. Practically all countries in the world have had very high tariffs. In Great Britain at present, the average tariff on all imported goods is 25 per cent. and that in a country with a long industrial tradition.
If the Senator choses to read recent comments on the state of the English economy in The Economist, The Statist, The Sunday Times and The Observer he will find a number of intelligent people recommending to Mr. Selwyn Lloyd that one of the ways of getting England permanently on its feet so that there will be no more economic crises is the lowering of tariffs to drive English industry into the export field and encourage better quality. I hope we will not need to hear any more in this debate about what appears always to be the public evil of Irish tariffs and quotas.
The consumers' association has nothing to do with this Bill. I know it would be a very good thing if we could afford the kind of association that exists in Great Britain. The object of the Institute under this Bill is to engage in improving the standards of ordinary household commodities. The work has to proceed on a slow basis. It is impossible to do a great many commodities at once. There are standard marks which can be licensed to firms. It is not obligatory on a firm to use a particular standard mark except in cases where the safety of the public is involved.
The Minister has said anything that I might have said in reply to Senator O'Quigley. I have 25 years' experience in the retail trade and it is part of my business to know all about boots and shoes. I was amazed and surprised to hear Senator O'Quigley make an attack in this House on Irish manufacturers.
On inefficient Irish manufacturers.
It did not make any difference. You have the letter you quoted from, but you made sure you did not quote the letter to this firm.
I am afraid I did not hear it. However, in typical Fine Gael form, he attacked the manufacturer, pretending he was leaving the worker immune from the attack. When you attack the manufacturer, you attack the worker and the whole field of Irish industry. I would remind the Senator that there is sufficient competition in the Republic at the moment to ensure that if these people want to remain in business, they must produce an article of a reasonable standard. Not only that, but if they go on the export market they must, as the Minister said, meet and beat the main competition in Western Europe. I grew up with the revival of Irish-manufactured goods.
The Senator may not widen the debate. He must keep to the question of standards.
With all respect, I think I am entitled to reply to and comment on the speeches already made. This Bill concerns what I am talking about.
It must be related to the question of standards.
This is only a section of the Bill.
Agreed. An attack has been made on Irish manufacturers.
On inefficiency. That is all.
I am afraid the Senator made an attack on Irish manufacturers.
An attack on one pair of shoes.
Any child in second book in school can tell you about French calf and Irish leather. The Senator does not mention that the construction of the shoe may make a terrible difference.
That is what the man said.
There is the modern type of shoe and there is the old last. It was possible to make a pair of hand-made shoes and still not have a dry foot. That is understood. I am very glad the Senator withdraws, in the main, what he has been talking about.
I do not. I repeat that my attack is directed against inefficiency. That is all. If you want to defend inefficiency, you are free to do so. We live in a democracy.
Your whole argument is based on one pair of shoes. Is that not peculiar?
The presumption is that ordinarily I wear clogs.
The Minister widened the scope of the debate when he referred to what he called the Fine Gael attitude to tariffs and quotas. Nobody on this side of the House referred to the Fianna Fáil attitude to anything but to the question of industrial research and standards, to the question of inefficiency in the manufacture of a pair of shoes. To introduce into this the whole question of tariffs and quotas is, I think, irrelevant and incorrect but it must be replied to.
The Senator is the man to do it.
Senator O'Quigley was allowed to refer to that in an argument in favour of standardisation of certain products, no more than that. There can be no discussion on the whole question of tariffs and quotas.
The Minister is allowed to make an allegation against the second largest political Party in this country, soon to be the largest, and the Party are not allowed to reply. That is the position.
If the Senator can relate his remarks to what is in the section, he will be in order. He will not be in order in discussing the whole question of tariffs and quotas.
Sub-paragraph (ii) of subsection (2) (a) of Section 6 refers to technical processes. The suggestion that the Party I represent regard tariffs and quotas as something that kept down the standard of the article and allowed manufacturers to proceed with inefficiency should not be made by the Minister. We here have no objection to tariffs and quotas, but there are obvious objections to allowing standards to be reduced. There is the objection that there might be a tariff of 35 per cent. where 15 per cent. was necessary and where 35 per cent. was necessary 30 years ago.
The Senator is now going outside the scope of the section.
In that case, I shall sit down.
May I ask the Minister, who expresses great familiarity with the workings of the Institute of Good Housekeeping in England, whether or not this Institute will perform functions analogous to that Institute? He attempted to lead the House into the belief that it will. From what the Minister said, it is quite clear that it will not. The Minister speaks about the fixing of standards by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. He says people may apply to the Institute for a licence and that thereafter they may stamp their goods with the stamp showing that they conform with the standard laid down by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. We know to date that where standards have been established by the Institute, in very few cases have these standards been adopted by manufacturers.
I challenge the Minister to deny that the purchaser of a saucepan or a pan or an electric fire in this country will never see a certificate from the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards saying: "This article conforms with the standards established by this Institute" and, by implication, is a well worth while article to buy.
Would the Senator consider raising these matters on Sections 24 and 25? I think they would be more appropriate there.
This is the Charter. Section 6 is the Charter for the Institute.
Sections 24 and 25 deal specifically with standard marks.
I want to make a prior inquiry as to whether or not they will issue standard marks of the kind I have in mind or will it be the useless kind of mark that is not used at present? Has any Senator ever seen the standard mark of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards upon any commodity he has bought?
Yes. The Senator is gravely misinformed.
Has any Senator seen even one "C.E."? I have never seen it and I doubt if the vast majority of people, except Senator Carter who is engaged in business and has seen it on something presented to him by a traveller——
The Senator is trying to be offensive. It is not an offence to be engaged in business.
The Senator is inordinately sensitive. The Senator is elected on the Labour Panel. He should not be sensitive about being engaged in business.
I fear that Senator O'Quigley would need to grow up.
This would be more appropriate on Sections 24 and 25.
I want to ascertain whether or not the position is to be that the provisions in paragraph (g) of subsection (2), that the Institute will test and analyse commodities intended for sale or for use by the public for the purpose of (i), (ii) and (iii), or generally with the object of ascertaining for the public benefit, the characteristic of such commodities, mean that housewives can in the near future, as a result of the reorganisation of this Institute, look forward to a position in which they will get a certificate, which will be the equivalent of that of the British Institute of Good Housekeeping, for Irish manufactured commodities.
The Minister asks for standards to be created for certain commodities including household commodities. That takes a long time to do. The standard mark can be set up by the Institute and people can apply for licences to use the mark. The use of the mark is not mandatory. Only a very small percentage of the firms use the mark. That applies both to here and to our neighbour across the sea, Great Britain. Very few firms as yet are using those marks, even though they are provided. The Institute is in no sense a consumers' organisation, either directly or indirectly, either here or in any other country.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
May I suggest that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 be taken together?
I move amendment No. 2:
To delete subsection (2) and substitute the following new subsection :
"( ) The Board shall consist of—
(i) One member appointed alternately by the Science and Engineering Faculties of each of the following institutions:
University College, Dublin.
University College, Cork.
University College, Galway.
Trinity College, Dublin.
(ii) The President of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland, or his nominee.
(iii) The President of the Institute of Chemists or his nominee.
(iv) Three members appointed by the Minister."
I want to appeal to all members here to take seriously this very real threat of State control which is very real. It is no fault of ours that, coming as late as we did to independence, and having to catch up in the industrial field, we had to do a great deal of work by means of State bodies. We did not have private enterprise like many others available for many of our national tasks and therefore had to resort to State bodies and their modification, which we call the semi-State body. They did a lot of good and even though it can be said that we probably have more State controlled activity here than any place in Western Europe, I am not putting that up as a criticism. We should make every effort to straighten out the position and see that as many of these functions as can be efficiently taken away from the State, will be transferred to and discharged by other bodies. The Industrial Research and Standards Institute offers such an opportunity. This is a board of nine and the proposal here is that they should all be appointed by the State.
We are not always going to have as Ministers the angels we have had in this and previous Governments. In building up the State, we have always to ensure that it has solid foundations and that those bodies will have a certain degree of independence and autonomy over and above the State. We should take the precaution to see that a certain number of the members are appointed by the Institute which is doing this type of work. That will strengthen the whole fabric of the State. We might go back and contrast this Institute with the Agricultural Institute into which a great deal more thought went than has gone into this present effort.
The Agricultural Institute created a great deal of controversy and the bodies concerned awoke to the encroachment on their rights before it was too late and consequently there was that effort to ensure that there was State control. I cannot see that there has been any parallel study made in remodifying or expanding the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards to perform the same function for industry. The hallmarks are there right through the Bill. There is more State control in this than there was in the Agricultural Institute Bill and my amendments are designed to lessen that. I do not want anybody to get the idea that I am referring to State control in a derogatory sense, but you must have balance. The State can have too much control as well as too little. We here will never suffer from the fact that the State has too little. In fact, it controls almost every facet of our lives. It appoints various people to boards and the boards which it does not control depend on the State for finance, and financial control is almost as effective as any other control.
I am moving that six members of the nine be appointed directly by other bodies. I am proposing that four should come from the universities, through the Faculties of Science and Engineering, one from the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland, which, after all, is the body par excellence qualified to speak, as stated in Section 8, subsection (3), for persons employed in industry. The whole engineering profession is making a special contribution to the industrial drive. In the same way, the chemists of Ireland speak for another important group. I think it is very reasonable that these bodies should make their own appointments because I cannot see that there is in the Department of Industry and Commerce any group competent to assess the qualifications of people to be appointed here for scientific research.
There is where we fall down always. Why not let the bodies concerned make their own appointments? I have put in the alternative as between the faculties of Agriculture and Engineering because I should like to see an element of rotation brought into the membership. Consequently, for one period the appointment would come from the faculty of Science and for another period from the faculty of Engineering, through the President and Governing Body of the University.
I think Senator Quinlan has made a very strong case for this amendment. I do not see the remotest chance of its being accepted, I regret to say, but I should like to go on record as saying that I think he is right. It would be better for the country if the Board were selected in this way. All of us have great admiration for the Civil Service and their methods; yet there are times when the independence a university can give is desirable. This is one of the cases where it is desirable. I would be delighted and astonished if the Minister would accept the amendment.
I am afraid I am unable to accept the amendment. The Institute intends to co-operate with the universities and other bodies and, if necessary, to ask them to engage in certain types of research on their behalf. The Minister is very anxious to get people who will have a particular gift for discharging the duties involved. If the amendment were adopted, you might have the disadvantage of there being too many divergent interests on the Board. There might possibly be clashes as to what sort of co-operation should be asked in regard to the various bodies.
It is quite evident that there are too many bodies for this particular Board. For example, Senator Quinlan chose the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institute of Chemists but there are other institutes which deal with scientific matters. I know the Minister feels that he should have the choice, by a later subsection, to choose members by reason of their attainments in scientific research applied to industry or because they are representative of industry or because they are persons employed in industry or are capable of giving substantial practical assistance in the work of the Institute. He is bound in the selection of the board to have regard to those qualifications.
It will be recalled that in the case of other State boards, there is not the same direction to the Minister as there is in this case. I think we can have reliance on the Minister's choice. He is bound to appoint people who have particularly good qualities in relation to the work of the Institute. I can hardly imagine a board of this kind without people representing university interests. Out of the nine members, I think it can be taken as reasonably certain there will be people who will be working in our universities and people who will have a general broad interest in industry.
It seems to me that the object of Senator Quinlan will be achieved by leaving the Bill at it is and allowing the Minister to choose people who he thinks will be good administrators of the Board. It is easy to imagine that a person nominated by a particular university college might be excellent at research in a particular field. He might have some good ideas about research in general but might not have the particular gift of being able to run this Board, which is a different matter.
The position of a member of the Board is one which requires particular qualities. For example, the president of a particular institute might be a person who is extremely good at running the affairs of his institute. He might be good at convening meetings. He might be good at meeting distinguished persons who come to lecture to the institute. He might be good at preparing the programme for the institute for the year or securing a good attendance and good membership. He might be good at all these things but he might not at the same time be good as a member of the Board of this Institute. I think, therefore, the Minister should be allowed the discretion.
May I say at once that the appointment of this Board and a decision as to how the Board ought to be appointed are not simple. Like Senators Stanford and Quinlan, I favour some amendment of this kind. I am not sure that the amendment, as framed, is quite workable but the Minister's own statement was very interesting. It is quite clear that the Minister for Industry and Commerce takes what is entirely a too narrow view of the work of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards.
The Minister talked of the necessity of having people who would not have divergent views. Could one not make an excellent argument that what you want on the Board are people who have divergent views, people who have not a one-track mind? What you want are people who have a lively mind, people who have behind them a career of pure research and who are not administrators. What the Minister talks about—and I say this without offence —is the usual Departmental idea that there must be a file and you must run everything in a straight line. You must not have any of these odd people who might not agree with you and who might not sign the memorandum in the appropriate place, at the appropriate date and on the correct line.
And with the correct two witnesses. That is not correct. He thinks there might be clashes. The Minister thinks apparently of a board of administrators but this Board, by its very nature, is a board of industrial research and not a matter of administration. It will have a secretary who would be a civil servant and no doubt will have all the administrative merits that good civil servants possess in abundance. The whole thing is based on the notion that there are people who are good in blinkers on industrial research to whom you can say: "Look; find out something about footwear, for example, the pair of shoes Senator O'Quigley complained about." There is no such thing. If a person is good at that, he is good at it because somebody did pure research in a research laboratory at a university or somewhere else.
There is the notion that you can get a board composed of persons who, in the words of the subsection, have "attainments in scientific research applied to industry", a civil servant or a Minister having decided who is good or who is bad. I submit that there is nobody in the Department of Industry and Commerce capable of deciding that at all. If the University Colleges were asked to appoint, or if the President of each College, having consulted with the faculty of Science or the faculty of Engineering, were to put somebody on this Board, they might not all be people who would exactly run in harness but I think you would have much more lively thinking and much better results in the end.
Whether or not the Minister accepts this amendment, I think he should use his influence with the Minister for Industry and Commerce to see that somebody is put on this Board whose interest, above all other interests, is in pure unapplied research. I took a certain amount of trouble in this connection many years ago when the first Bill was introduced here. There was considerable discussion in the other House. A member of the Minister's own Party in the other House fought the present Taoiseach in this matter from the very beginning. Between what was said in the Dáil and here, I think in the end we convinced the Taoiseach about it.
This Board will not work satisfactorily unless you put upon it a scientist, not because he is good at the application of science to industry but because he is good at science and has ideas and has a knowledge of what is happening in the world of science as distinct from research applied to certain specific industrial purposes.
I regret the state of mind of the Minister for Industry and Commerce which the present Minister has revealed to us. I think the whole idea of the Board is far too narrow. The kind of board the Minister wants will not have divergent views; it will not have clashes. They will be good administrators. He will choose all those people. Who will be competent to say that all the people so chosen will have all these qualities?
I suggest that if they have these qualities, they are precisely the qualities which will make the Board not a success but a failure. They would benefit very much by the odd kind of person who is first-class at research. I know that the people who are first-class at research are not people who work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. or to whom you can say: "Go in and do so-and-so before tomorrow." They will not do that for you. Unless a whiff of fresh air from research in laboratories, which is rather a contradiction in terms, comes here, the Board will not work. The view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce is too narrow. It will not make for efficient working either with the Board as contemplated in the section or the Board as contemplated in the amendment.
In moving this amendment, I was not looking for university representation or for anything for the university. We do not want anything from this. We are giving the services of our trained men to man this Board. As both Senators Stanford and Hayes have emphasised, this Board cannot be a success without that personnel.
There is not within the Department of Industry and Commerce the personnel to judge who are the people competent in research of this kind. It is going beyond the functions that should be discharged by any body of non-scientists to sit and take to themselves the right to judge what scientists are likely to be desirable. The major requirement seems to be that they should not cause any difficulties in administration.
If we take the heads of our departments, the men likely to know, I doubt if the Minister could find more skilled administrators anywhere in the country than the men who head our scientific departments because they are always trying to make £1 do the work of £10. That is administration par excellence. They are living on pittances of allowances for research that are just a laughing-stock in other countries but they are doing that work and it gains international recognition. Therefore, I am moving this amendment more in sorrow than in anger, in sorrow at the narrow approach to this problem. There is on record nowhere, in relation to this new body to rejuvenate Irish industry just as we take a leap into the Common Market, that a single committee was set up to give us a blueprint for the future. That is what has got us into most of our difficulties in the past.
My regret is that the time has been too short. The Bill has come too quickly. The bodies concerned have not been aware of what is happening or else an action paralleling the magnificent reaction we had would have taken place and once again a body would be forged that would do the job.
On the question of the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, he is not supposed to be an administrator, and so on. Surely the judgment of the engineers of Ireland, not necessarily civil engineers but all engineers, in selecting a man to lead them for one year, must be accepted as at least as good as the judgment of any group in any Civil Service Department, without in the slightest way being disrespectful to any Civil Service Department? We have to do our own work. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his attitude on this and perhaps he would indicate it further on Report Stage.
I feel that Senator Quinlan is over-anxious and fearful about wrong appointments being made to this board. Whether one is a civil servant or just an ordinary lay person, all of us know well who the people are who are doing good scientific research. We do not have to be actually in the university or in the Institution of Engineers to know the people who are doing the work. Many others, quite outside all these things, read and make ourselves aware of what is going on. If the ordinary laity are doing that, I have no doubt that the Department is doing it very much better. Even though researchers and professors generally are people who work quietly, I must say that it is not my experience that most of them hide their lights too closely under many bushels.
It is true to say that the Minister with his advisers, will not keep out all these wonderful researchers and scientists. We all hope that, in their wisdom, they will pick the people to the best advantage of the group being set up and that, even though it is not done as Senator Quinlan wishes it to be done, it will be a good Institute.
I withdraw the amendment. It will be retabled on Report Stage, in the hope that the Minister will reconsider it in the meantime.
That is an act of hope, Sir, following an act of faith.
Let us hope it will be followed by an act of charity and brotherly love.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In subsection (5), page 6, line 2, to delete "third" and substitute "fifth" and in line 4, to delete "triennially" and substitute "quinquennially".
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 may be discussed together.
Yes, with your permission, Sir. Briefly, for the functioning of a research corps, you need a great deal of continuity. I believe three years is too short a term for appointment on the Board and I suggest the period should be extended to five years. I think it is wrong that they should change every three years. When you consider how long it takes to do any considerable volume of research or investigation, you can see how undesirable it is that the membership of the Board should be chopped and changed in this way.
I understand the Minister desires an early opportunity of reviewing the members of the Board, particularly in view of the expansion which is taking place in the Institute. It is true that in the case of a number of other bodies, the term of office is five years. He would like to have a shorter period in the case of this Institute because, as I said, of its expansion and of the various changes taking place in its administration. He is very strongly in favour of the three-year period.
I do not understand all this talk about the almighty Minister in the background. The Minister selects. He can select better than any university or any group and he can review better. How can he review unless he has several members of council there to report specifically on the day-to-day doings of the members? It puzzles me how any outside person could be sufficiently aware of what is happening within a committee to be in a position to review it periodically. It makes me nervous of the whole thing.
One could argue that the difference between three and five is one which depends partly on the way the Institute gets going. The Institute might have difficulty in getting going and in appointing staff, so I will ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to consider, between now and Report Stage, whether he will change it to five. I think it is arguable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (1) says that "Every member of the Board shall hold office on such terms as the Minister may determine." I should like a little more clarification on this point. Does this mean that the Minister envisages that the members shall receive regular salaries? If it does, I believe it would be far better if their services were on a voluntary basis, with expenses, and the money devoted to the development of research in the applied research centres in the country.
I think the Minister does intend to provide remuneration for the members of the Board. If the Senator looks at Section 9, with subsections (1) and (2) taken together, he will see that this phraseology is of the usual kind.
The Minister has not made up his mind about that.
I should like to stress that what is called for is some type of extra-curricular work. Practically all the universities in the United States and in many parts of Europe are now on a nine months basis, that is, they are all primarily universities but there is teaching and general research work during the nine months. It is recognised that during the summer period the people concerned are free to accept employment elsewhere. Very often that employment takes the form of research grants given by various agencies such as the Ford Foundation or the Rockefeller Institution and other such bodies.
Under this Bill the Board can appoint committees, and pay fees to the committees if it desires, for special work outside the ordinary work of the permanent officers of the Board. It can also pay fees for short periods to individuals to do work, so that it is very flexible in respect of that sort of thing.
I suggest that the Minister could perhaps with benefit study what has been done by research organisations in England and America.
This is the kind of thing we had in the Broadcasting Authority Bill and the Minister says it is standard practice. I wonder will the Dáil be informed of the terms of remuneration of the members from time to time? I think in relation to the members of the Broadcasting Authority the Minister undertook to place before each House of the Oireachtas particulars in regard to the conditions of appointment of the chairman and of the members.
I think if a member of the Dáil asked a question in regard to the remuneration of members, the Minister for Industry and Commerce would give the required particulars.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
I am opposing this section. Again, this is one of those unnecessary incursions by the State into the workings of the Board. It may be said that the State would never exercise such a right, but as it stands it leaves the way open for such a right to be exercised at any time in the future. In a body devoted to research, carrying on a continuous effort over the years, even if it does have one troublesome member in nine, he may be the gadfly which stimulates them to better endeavour. I cannot see how the Minister has the information necessary to remove such a member. Where is his spyline into the councils of this new body which reports that such a member is proving troublesome and not performing his functions?
In this connection I might refer to the Agricultural Institute Bill which was more reasonable. In regard to it, the Government, not the Minister, may, at any time, on the advice of the council, remove an ordinary member of the council from office. It would be quite reasonable if the removal were done on the advice of the council but I cannot see how the Minister, lacking the advice of the council, would be in a position to remove anybody from the Board. Consequently the foundations of this new Institute would be much sounder if this section were dropped altogether.
I think it is customary in legislation governing a great many boards for a Minister to have power to remove members of the board. It seems to me that for purely commonsense reasons, he must have power to remove a member of a board whose conduct after his appointment becomes quite unsuitable. I need not go into this matter in detail. People's characters do deteriorate so that they become unfit for duty of this kind. It is possible for the chairman, if he chooses, to speak to the Minister privately in regard to the conduct of someone who is no longer serving the Institute. There must always be a clause of this kind in a Bill simply for ordinary human reasons of which the Seanad is aware. I hope nobody will ever be appointed to whom this section will need to be applied. Nevertheless, it may happen.
This section would probably fall if the manner of appointment of the Board, as suggested in Senator Quinlan's amendment, were carried out because the desire would be to make it a completely autonomous body. The desire is not to make it an autonomous body. As the Minister points out, the fact that the Minister removes one is entirely consequent upon the other. There is something in the suggestion that this matter should be considered before Report Stage and an amendment—not Senator Quinlan's amendment—introduced which would mean that some portion of the Board at least would not be appointed by the Minister. If the whole Board is to be appointed by the Minister, the Minister must have the right to remove the one.
Perhaps the Minister would replace this by some section more in line with what is in the Agricultural Institute? In other words, the Minister should be acting on the advice of the Board.
As far as I understand it, if the Minister appoints, he must have the right to remove. In the case of An Foras Talúntais, a number of the members were nominated. That is not the case here. All the members are appointed by the Minister. There could be circumstances in which it would be necessary to remove a person. For instance, somebody might be appointed by the Minister in very good faith who never attended meetings of the Board. There is no need for me to enlarge on this any further. It is customary in the case of all Acts governing boards of this kind to give the Minister that power in one form or another. Certainly, in recent years there has always been some section in an Act giving the Minister this power.
We get rather weary listening to Ministers saying: "It is customary." Another phrase used is that "it is common form". Things that are customary and common form can turn out, on examination, to be quite unsuitable. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is a mild-mannered gentleman. I am glad to be able to say that about him in his absence. I can say it in his presence, too. He has not got the ruthlessness of his senior colleague, the Minister for Health, who in the Nurses Bill puts in a provision that the board shall furnish to the Minister such information with regard to the performance of their functions as the Minister may require. That is a good piece of fight on the part of the Minister for Health.
I have examined this Bill. There is no authority vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ascertain from the Institute what is going on. Therefore, it is left to a haphazard method. Indeed, if it is a method at all, it is an illicit method, as Senator Quinlan suggests. The Minister must go round spying and hearing stories in bars, lounges and corridors. That is the way the Minister would get his information.
On a point of order, is it in accordance with the good conduct of the House to say the Minister might get his information in a public house?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think it was a facetious suggestion.
I think it is completely out of order.
There is nothing wrong with public houses. They are great institutions. They are licensed under Act of Parliament. There is nothing at all wrong with public houses.
I do not think the Senator can relate that to what he is talking about.
I am quite specific about it. If the Minister has not authority under this Bill, as the Minister for Health has under the Nurses Bill, to get information from the Board, then he must get his information in some way other than by asking the Board from time to time what is going on. I suggest there are a variety of ways in which he can pick up that information which are not, in my view, the most salutary.
One of them being a public house.
That is so. It is well known that Ministers go into public houses and public bars. There is nothing wrong with that. Senator Carter is getting very sensitive indeed. There is a great deal in the point made by Senator Quinlan that there is not any way, except some kind of underhand way, by which the Minister for Industry and Commerce can acquire information. I think, therefore, that the section might be deleted completely. Alternatively, the Minister for Industry and Commerce might bring in a section requiring the Board from time to time to give such information as he requires. That is the standard in many of these Bills.
It would, therefore, seem unnecessary to have Section 11 in view of the fact that in Section 9 we say: "Every member of the Board shall hold office on such terms as the Minister may determine." There is nothing to prevent the Minister for Industry and Commerce from saying: "You are appointed for a period of three years. Your appointment may be determined at any time for reasons which appear to me, on information supplied by the Board, satisfactory." It would be a much more straightforward way of dealing with the matter.
The Senator reduced this to the level of a half barrel. The Senator will soon be standing on a half barrel outside pubs when we will find out how he will acquit himself. The Minister is right to retain Section 11. Senator O'Quigley sets himself up as a neo-draftsman in this House. He contends religiously, in season and out of season, that no other Senator has the right to interpret a section in the Bill but himself.
The Senator never implied that.
The Minister is right in setting up a semi-statutory corporation to retain powers for himself to remove any member of the Board. The Minister does not visualise a board of cranks or a board that might be inclined to conduct its affairs in such a way as would call for an inquiry, like the Governing Body of University College, Dublin. We cannot pay for those inquiries every day in the week.
Is it in order for the Senator to libel a body that is not present?
The Minister is perfectly right to retain the power under this section to remove any member of the Board. You might get all sorts of cranks on the Board, even the type of Senator O'Quigley.
Good. The Senator is in a bad mood this evening.
I am surprised at the bad mood of the Senator, amounting almost to viciousness. Then his humour changed. I wonder if it is because he is a pussyfoot himself that he is in such bad humour? The level of the half barrel is not so low and the level of debate there is not as low sometimes as in this House which is the second largest public house in the State. If what Senator O'Quigley pointed out is not a drafting error, it is not necessary. Why do we want Section 11 (1) at all? Senator O'Quigley would make one of the finest draftsmen they ever had in the draftsman's office. It seems a pity that he can find so many errors of draftsmanship in Bills. It is an interesting point that since this Seanad first sat, Senator O'Quigley has changed the law on almost innumerable occasions and that Senator Carter has not added an "i" or crossed a "t" yet.
Senator Carter speaks about a committee of cranks and, on the other hand, says the Minister will join the committee of cranks. He cannot have it both ways unless he says the Minister is totally negative.
Time will test the Senator and time will test the Board. The Senator is speaking on a hypothetical basis.
I want to see quite clearly in statute form the advice on which the Minister is acting. I do not want it to be a type of hole-in-the-corner advice. If he is to rely on the advice of the chairman of the Board let it be put in here that he will remove a member from the Board or, which is far better, as in the Agricultural Institute measure, "on the advice of the Council." I deprecate this type of legislation under which you get a tap on the shoulder and are told: "You are not a suitable member for the board"—you can get a formula which covers that—"and your appointment is terminated." Let the Council be the judges.
If it were on the advice of the chairman of the Board, supposing he were the crank or the failure, then he could not be removed.
Suppose the Minister is the crank?
The people will be the ultimate judge of that, in three months' time.
I could not offer any hope that this would be considered on Report Stage. The Minister absolutely insists on this section. It is meant to apply only in really serious cases. They hardly ever arise. Nevertheless, the precaution must be taken. There are very few cases in which directors or members of State boards have been dispensed with under sections of this kind. They are dismissed only in extremely exceptional circumstances. The section is nevertheless put there to cover a possible eventuality, an eventuality which may never arise.
I will not quarrel with the section being there or the Minister having the power but I want to see where the Minister gets the information. Why not put it down here?
That is not what the Senator said. The Senator is opposing the section illogically.
I am opposing the section as it stands. If the Minister will show his right of authority, I may be disposed to accept it as an interim measure. By attacking those outmoded and outdated provisions, we may hope that future Bills coming through here will not have the same anachronisms.
Question put and agreed to, Senator Quinlan dissenting.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 6:
To delete subsection (1).
I have a number of amendments here which are designed to get away, on the one hand, from the exclusion of members of the Houses of the Oireachtas from being on state boards or being members of those bodies. It does seem that the low respect in which members of the Houses are held outside at times is due to the feeling abroad that politics or being a member of the Oireachtas is something to be ashamed of. I do not think any of us feel that way about it. Consequently, why should we exclude ourselves?
I have taken a half-way measure here in that I have suggested that the first subsection of Section 13 be deleted, that is, if the member of the board during his term of membership is elected to either House of the Oireachtas. The subsection reads:
Where a member of the Board becomes a member of either House of the Oireachtas, he shall, upon his becoming entitled under the Standing Orders of that House to sit therein, cease to be a member of the Board.
By removing that subsection, we would at least allow him to serve out his term on the board. Subsection (2) provides that any member who is sitting in either House is not eligible to be a member of the Board. We may go back here to the Agricultural Institute. In the Agricultural Institute which, as I pointed out before, was the hardest fought for body we have constituted in this country and the one into which most thought went, we have no such restrictive clause. Likewise the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. I have been a member of that Board for the past ten years. There is no such restrictive clause. Therefore, I move that we delete subsection (1) as a first step.
As Senator Quinlan mentioned, these two subsections here the first of which this amendment refers to, are common form. In the introduction of all new boards, just as this one, it seems to be common form to exclude all members of the Oireachtas. When these things become accepted, it becomes, shall I pun it, common form not to disagree with them. It is questionable whether it is right or wrong.
In America, for instance, you have members of both Houses of Parliament on all sorts of committees one reads about, doing valuable work. It is rather a pity in a way that all members of Parliament should be excluded from boards such as this. I do not go with Senator Quinlan in his half-way house measure. I know there is no hope of any amendment being accepted on Report Stage which will allow members of Parliament to be members of the board we are about to set up but I should like to put the question mark in the mind of the Government as to whether or not it is right to exclude all members of Parliament. I think members of the Opposition and of the Government Party could, in the case of various boards, perhaps because of their experience, be the most valuable members. Why should membership of this House or the lower House debar a person from giving to the country, through membership of a board such as this, the contribution he is capable of giving and which the country requires?
I think it is altogether too narrow a view and while, as I say, I know it is hardly worth while trying to change broad Government policy in this respect, it is no harm to comment upon it. Indeed, the question is whether it is broad Government policy or broad Civil Service policy, whether heads of Departments over the years have convinced Ministers of State that this was the proper view and that the introduction of members of the Dáil and Seanad into various State-run institutions would interfere with the introduction of larger numbers of civil servants, or in fact bring the sort of view which all politicians bring to bear on those subjects in conflict with what the politicians know as the stereotyped view.
I put this amendment in not in the hope of getting it through now but in the hope that perhaps in three or four years' time, we may achieve its objective. Neither the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies nor the Agricultural Institute has this obnoxious clause. I might say that as far as this Industrial Research and Standards Institute is concerned a potentially valuable member could be Deputy de Valera who knows an immense amount about this and who could make a first-class contribution, but he is excluded.
Before this amendment is withdrawn by leave, I want to say that there may be something in the view expressed by Senator Donegan, but that is a big issue and there should not be a desire to decide it by an amendment. It should be decided by a motion.
When would the Government take it? In three years' time?
I take the view myself that there might be abuse, if there was no such restriction. There might be a desire on the part of members of this House and of Dáil Éireann to become members and if you had a weak Government unable to resist pressure that could be dangerous. In our desire to appear right rather than to be right— as in the saying that justice must appear to be done—we may prevent the valuable services of a few being given, people who would have a very valuable contribution to make. It would be a pity in the long run that that should happen but if it is to be decided, it is a matter for a motion and not an amendment in this House and Dáil Éireann.
There is one question which I should like to ask. Senator Quinlan and Senator Donegan do not like this exclusion of members of the Oireachtas but they are both stalwarts of a national institution which is called the National Farmers Association.
On a point of information, I am not a member of the National Farmers Association.
On a point of information, I am.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The position is now established.
A rule of the National Farmers Association is that no member of the Oireachtas can hold office. I cannot understand why Senator Donegan objects violently in this instance when he does not object so far as the National Farmers Association is concerned. It seems to me to be a volte face.
The Senator is not quite correct in his view on the laws of the National Farmers Association. The position is that no office above county office can be held by a member of the Oireachtas. There is a point which I might address to Senator Sheridan, that is, that if one is a member of an association, it is not necessary that one should agree with every "t" crossed or every "i" dotted in the rules and regulations of that association. No one member could possibly agree with everything because that would obviously constitute a slavish approach which is so evident in certain other associations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 might be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In subsection (3) (a), page 7, lines 4 and 5, to delete "stand seconded from such employment" and substitute "obtain the necessary leave of absence."
This again is another sacred cow and I do not expect to rout the cow at this stage but it may start the thinking process. It is concerned with the fact that any employee of this Board, if he becomes a member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, must stand seconded from such employment. What a prospect to offer anybody! This Board is to have the best talent, presumably, paying salaries in the order of £1,000 or £2,000 and they are to be seconded to take their chances for five years in Dáil Éireann at a salary of £1,000, of which £500 is expenses; or to be seconded to come to Seanad Éireann, at £375 after providing for allowances. In other words, Dáil and Seanad Éireann are closed to the professional classes, apart from lawyers who are more or less self-employed and can carry on business and still be members of either House. Teachers to a minor extent can do the same because they can employ substitutes and get the difference in salary between what they pay the substitute and what they get themselves as teachers. Similarly, a few medical men have scrambled in in the same way.
It is about time we faced the fact that we are excluding from membership of the Oireachtas a large and responsible section of the people, the professional classes. In many ways, that may be the reason there is so much, shall we say, derision about, or such a poor opinion of, members of the Dáil and Seanad. Those classes feel they are excluded and, in turn, treat the institutions that exclude them with contempt. That is why professional classes are not playing a greater rôle in the life of this country. Simply because they are debarred, we have a type of political apartheid that excludes the cream of our people from membership.
I could give one example. It is all right for Senator Carter to talk even though he is self-employed. He fits in.
In Holland, all are encouraged to go for the different Houses of Parliament. Even civil servants are allowed to become members. If there is a difference in salary between what they receive from the central Government and their allowance as members of Parliament, it is made up by the State body or private body for which they work. In other words, a family should not be penalised solely because the head of the family decides to answer the call and serve in the Parliament of the country. In the hope of striking a blow then for the emancipation of the segregated professorial classes, I move that the words "stand seconded from such appointment" be replaced by the words "obtain the necessary leave of absence." The other amendments are consequential.
Much as I applaud the spirit of the amendment, the matter is not possible. While there should be no reason why a member of the Board itself, which might meet only once a week, could not be a member of the Oireachtas, it would not be in line with all previous practice for an officer or servant of the Board to be a member of the Oireachtas. Civil servants cannot engage in politics. Members of local authorities and members of semi-Government boards cannot engage in politics.
There is, I think, an obvious reason they should not. It would not be a proper thing for an officer or servant of this Board carrying out the work of the Board itself to become a member of the Oireachtas. I do not think that in any country in the world you will find permission for public servants, such as civil servants, local authority employees or officers or servants of semi-Government bodies, to engage in politics. I know that on the face of it that is a fault of our democracy but it is a fault that for obvious reasons must be there. It is a fault that is to be found in every democratic country all over the world. I think this amendment would not just be possible.
Senator Donegan has expressed my views. I should make it clear that I, my colleagues and our predecessors, through experience and by watching events, are adamant in our belief that members, officers or servants of boards should not be members of the Oireachtas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Might I be permitted to intervene in order to say that it is desirable to finish this business tonight and that if it is not finished, it may be necessary to sit beyond the normal time to finish it?
An Leas-Charthaoirleach
Section 13 is someing in the nature of a repeat of a section in a Bill relating to the E.S.B. passed in 1957 or 1958. It was the first step in the liberalisation of the bans that were imposed on officers and servants of semi-State bodies with regard to their becoming members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister for Transport and Power and Senator Donegan have certain views on this matter. It is pleasant to see a coincidence of views on different sides of the House from time to time; it is refreshing to see that happen. We had Senator O'Reilly agreeing on something this evening as well with Senator Donegan. Senator Donegan appears to be a most agreeable person by all accounts.
The Minister said that officers and servants of boards should not be members of the Oireachtas and that that has always been so. That, he said, was the view of himself, his colleagues and his predecessors. I can recall a time when a politician was not able to put his foot inside the Department of Finance to advocate any matter on behalf of civil servants. That was a sacred principle in all Governments. It held out until 1948. Then the political representative put his foot inside the Department of Finance and the building did not collapse. The work of the Department proceeded unhindered. Then they set up a scheme of conciliation and arbitration. When the scheme was operated, democarcy continued to function more effectively and efficiently by reason of the introduction of that form of liberalisation.
Likewise, we have this ban upon entry into the Dáil or Seanad of members of semi-State bodies. The Minister does not hold out any hope of a situation in which there can be any liberalisation of any kind in this regard. He has great admiration for what goes on in Great Britain. He spends his time, judging from his announcements, digesting many of the publications issued from Great Britain. I am quite certain that the Minister must be aware that Great Britain, which commands his unbounded admiration in many respects, has actually gone the distance of enabling certain classes of civil servants to become members of the House of Commons.
That might appeal to the Minister for Transport and Power. He may be able to persuade his colleagues that the British Empire, or what is left of it still, is not disturbed because of the presence in the Parliament of people who are seconded civil servants of the British Government. In this country, you will find that officers and servants of local authorities are members of the Oireachtas. I think we had even a member of the Dublin Corporation staff a member of this House at one stage. That did not upset the Dublin Corporation and it did not upset this House.
The chief medical officers of health in various counties were members of Dáil Éireann and they functioned effectively as such members. I believe they discharged, when free to do so, the functions of their office as chief medical officer of health. Dispensary doctors, remunerated out of public funds and also employees of local authorities, were members of the Oireachtas. It has not caused any great crack in the constitutional structure of this State that such people have been members. In fact, it is quite a good thing to have a doctor in the house from time to time.
We have teachers. There was a time in this country when it was not licit for a national teacher to attend a political meeting in public. Teachers were dismissed by the Board of Education in the 1900s because they dared to be present at a political gathering. Eventually, the Secretary of State, or whatever he was called, at the time here, got wise to things and permitted teachers and teachers are now members of Dáil Éireann. However, there was a time when people held the same rigid, obsolete view as the Minister for Transport and Power on this matter.
Teachers cannot be members of parent-teacher groups.
We might have that later on the motion when we may hope to hear the Senator on that.
There could not be such a thing as a parent-teacher group.
Local Government engineers and inspectors of the Department of Local Government, whom I always regard as State functionaries, have been members of Dáil Éireann. In face of all that, how can the Minister justify the exclusion, because that is what this section amounts to, of a messenger who attends upon people, say, in the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards from membership of Dáil Éireann? What is the justification for that?
Is it not the height of nonsense to insert this lengthy section, consisting of two pages, a provision prohibiting a messenger or a cleaner or a fire lighter who is a servant, obtaining wages from the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, from becoming a member of Dáil Éireann, if he is able to? How would it affect the operations of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards if the fire lighter became a member of the Oireachtas? Indeed, how would it upset the constitutional position or the work of either House of the Oireachtas if such a person became a member of the Oireachtas?
From what I have said, is it not patently clear that this whole section is complete nonsense? The fact that these rigid conditions have applied up to the present time is no excuse for passing it off and saying it has always been so and must always be so, in the face of all that evidence in this country and across the water.
I guarantee that if this section were not in the Bill, there would be a ghastly howl from the members of the Fine Gael Party in the Dáil alleging we were trying to infiltrate into State companies. I am perfectly certain of that.
In so far as the Senator's observations about my remarks in relation to Great Britain are concerned, in so far as they have been made tonight they have indicated that one can be very critical of what goes on in Great Britain, in relation to the conduct of industry in this country. The British have their very grave defects as well. I do not know how Senator O'Quigley can say that in the context of this Bill I have been glorifying the British. I have been making objective comments on the comparative merits of manufacture in Britain and here.
Even in that country, with its long industrial tradition, their industries are far from perfect yet. That is all I have said. I do not propose to argue on this section. I believe the reasons for it are fully understood by members of the House.
If my recollection is right—I have not read the Dáil report —but I think this section was the subject of some adverse comment from the Leader of the Opposition in Dáil Éireann. However, it is not for that reason that I am speaking on it. I opposed a similar section in the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Bill I spoke about earlier.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 14 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That Section 33 stand part of the Bill."
I am not, indeed, the expert parliamentary draftsman that some Senators have suggested I am and I do not say I am such——
——but what little knowledge I have I use to the best advantage and sometimes to the annoyance of some people. That I regret. What is the purpose of this section? It seems to me to be wholly redundant, in view of the fact that under Section 5 we establish the Institute as a body corporate with perpetual succession and a seal and power to sue and be sued in its corporate name and to hold land. The power to hold land, to buy it and to lease it seems to be a necessary——
It is considered necessary, in spite of the existence of other sections where the Institute would appear to have this power, to repeat a provision of the 1946 Act by which the Institute will have power to dispose of property no longer required for its purposes. In the opinion of the draftsman, that subsection is necessary. I cannot enlighten the Senator further on that.
The House, I think, is entitled to be informed why a particular section should pass and deliberately be put into a Bill. All we are told is that it is necessary. We take it for granted it was considered necessary: otherwise, it would not appear in the Bill. What is the opinion of the draftsman that deems it to be necessary? It seems to me that the Institute or corporate body has power to hold land and has power to do all these other things. You might as well say that the Institute, in addition to purchasing and leasing land and buildings and extending offices and premises should have power to redecorate every five years. That seems to be as sensible as to put in the obvious point that it can purchase and lease land.
I shall ask the Minister, before Report Stage, about the matter. He can examine this and, if necessary, remove it. It is pretty harmless, is it not?
I do not believe in this kind of redundancy. It is a waste of public time and public money to insert such sections in Bills. It is a poor defence to say it is harmless.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 34.
I move amendment No. 12:
In subsection (2) to delete paragraph (a).
Section 34 deals with the appointments of officers and servants and says they shall be appointed by means of a public competition except in the case of an office for which, in the opinion of the Board, specialised qualifications not commonly held are required. That clause is absolutely dynamite. It is interesting to trace the history of this piece of legislation. It raised its horny head first in the Broadcasting Authority Bill. Everything was clear and straight in the Agricultural Institute Bill which said:
Before making an appointment to an office on the research staff of the Institute,——
and here we are dealing with research staff
——the Council shall appoint a board, composed of persons who, in the opinion of the Council, are suitable and competent for the purpose, to examine the applications, and to recommend a person for appointment to the office and the Council shall consider the recommendation of the board.
The first breach made in that was in the Broadcasting Authority Bill and we fought it very hard, but the excuse given was: "You know those musicians are tempermental and if they were told they must undergo a public competition, they simply would not do it."
Has the Senator any fault to find with the way it has worked?
I am not concerned with that; I am concerned with the principle. This was forced in at the time in the teeth of opposition from the Seanad. It went through by a couple of votes when the whip was cracked. The idea of people being temperamental is now being applied to scientists. This almost negatives the idea of advertising or competition. This is the very thing for which we are being pilloried in the university. In point of fact, our appointments are done in four stages, in the full glare of the public and every stage is seen and discussed. It is the fairest way and it gets the best results of any appointment system in this country. I am anxious to see it being changed because it takes too much time to achieve the results, but when a public body is to be blanketed with a statement like this it can do what it likes.
Why was that not in the Agricultural Institute Bill? Surely they are making appointments every day of people holding qualifications not commonly held? Why has it to become necessary to do this in the two years since we passed the Agricultural Institute Bill? I want to appeal to the Minister to consider this very carefully for Report Stage and to remove this provision. If university professorships have to be advertised fully and openly, why should not all positions in this new Institute be treated the same way?
I think Senator Quinlan is right. I remember the previous instance and I thought he was right then also. The first subsection of Section 34 lays it down clearly that the Institute shall appoint such and so many persons to be officers and servants of the Institute as the Institute from time to time thinks proper, but, subject to subsection (2), a person shall not be appointed under this section to be an officer of the Institute unless he has been selected by means of a public competition.
The first subsection contains a principle to which we all subscribe and it is admirable, but subsection (2) contains a paragraph which gives exemption from the provisions of that first subsection in certain circumstances. It says that "the requirement under subsection (1) of this section of being selected by means of a public competition shall not apply in relation to..." and then we have this paragraph which Senator Quinlan wants to see deleted, that public competitions shall not apply for offices which, in the opinion of the Board, require specialised qualifications which are not commonly held.
I suggest that if these qualifications for a particular job are so uncommon that when you advertise the competition and get only one candidate, then in that case there will be no competition anyway and therefore the provisions of this paragraph will be met. If, on the other hand, when you advertise, there are only two candidates, then a competition in these circumstances is a valuable thing. Consequently, to remove the necessity for the competition is highly dangerous, particularly when you leave it to the opinion of the Board to decide whether or not qualifications are commonly held.
I would not see any disadvantage in holding public competitions as well, although the qualifications be rare. Even for the sake of the successful candidate, it is better to say: "I applied for this position which was publicly advertised and anybody in the same field was free to apply. The fact that there was no other candidate is not my fault." But if you say: "This is a specialised position in the opinion of the Board and we are going to appoint anybody without a competition," then you are leaving the Board open to the accusation of jobbery. That does not mean that would be the case but you are leaving the door open for that accusation. I do not see what harm it can do to insist on public competitions in the terms of subsection (1) even for those positions where the qualifications are not very common. Therefore, I support the amendment.
This is a strange section and the amendment seems to be well warranted, particularly in view of our experience. We have in this country a body which bears some resemblance to this Institute. It is called the Economic Research Institute. It might be thought that is a public body having no connection with the Oireachtas but I notice it is a body to which we propose in the present Estimates to subscribe £6,500. I do not know what the charter of the Economic Research Institute is but it is perfectly clear that they did not advertise their positions for public competition in this country, because according to a motion on the Order Paper, we find that, with the sole exception of the director, the rest of the staff have been recruited everywhere except in Ireland. Obviously, people in the Economic Research Institute are all of this ilk, that they have specialised qualifications.
I do not understand why it is not provided in the Bill that people with all classes of qualifications shall be sought after by public advertisement and from public competition. There can always be a proviso that if, after advertising—as has happened in connection with appointments in the Civil Service—it is not possible to get persons of the requisite standard of qualification, then you can resort to another exceptional method. It should be resorted to only after a public competition has been unsuccessfully held.
Section 34 (2) (a) says:
The requirement under subsection (1) of this section of being selected by means of a public competition shall not apply in relation to—
an office for which, in the opinion of the Board, specialised qualifications not commonly held are required.
I do not understand the justification for that. The Minister may say that the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards has been unable in its 14 years existence to get adequate staffing of the kind it requires. That is so. We know from the fourteenth annual report of the Institute that the difficulty in recruiting suitable technical staff still persisted as of 31st March, 1960, but the reason was not any lack of suitable material. That was not the reason assigned by the Institute in its report but the unattractiveness of the salary rates and prospects offered by the Institute.
No amount of public competition will bring into the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards people of the required calibre unless proper rates are offered to them. It is no justification for the Minister to say there will be difficulty and that is the only way of offering people particular appointments who are known to be interested in this kind of work and that that is the way it will be got round. I believe the best way is by publicly advertising these appointments at suitably attractive rates of salary. Having done that, if it does not succeed, it would be possible to make provision in this section for the making of appointments analogous to appointments in the public interest made by the Government under the Civil Service regulations.
Subsection (2) indicates an attempt to be fair. Subparagraph (a) undoubtedly specifies that an appointment can be made without public advertisement because of some qualification not commonly held. I do not know what such a qualification could be. How many people in this country are versed in radioactivity? Perhaps, the Cork Senator could tell us something about what special qualifications are necessary. Apparently, there must be some idea in the mind of the Minister and the draftsmen but subparagraphs (b) and (c) seem to be an attempt to be fair. Subparagraph (b) says the appointment can be made temporarily for two years but subparagraph (c) debars such a person from a permanent appointment. We could criticise the fact that if a person were to be appointed temporarily for two years and would then not be capable of being an applicant for a permanent appointment, we would be paving the way for sharp practices. The whole of subsection (2) seems to me to be an attempt at being fair, except for the point made by the Senators opposite. There are these specialised qualifications. I am just wondering what the specialised qualifications would be in a case like this. I assume it would not be there, if it were not necessary.
It is not considered necessary.
There are certain people whose idea it is to oppose anything, no matter what it is, simply because a Fianna Fáil Minister is there.
I try to be fair. I agree with Senator O'Quigley on the question of draftsmanship but I do not approve of wasting time if the Opposition cannot suggest something we can come to grips with. I believe subsection (2) is reasonable, although I have expressed a doubt on what these specialised qualifications would be. We should be reasonable in discussing the whole subsection as well as subparagraph (a).
I think the Minister inserted subsection (2) (a) with this in view. First of all, it would hardly ever be taken advantage of by the Board because it is quite clear that the Board will be expected to appoint officers and servants in the ordinary way by public competition but there are cases, known to all of us, which arise from time to time where some expert in possibly some very obscure scientific subject, which is, nevertheless, of vital importance to the Institute, comes suddenly free for one reason or another and where it is desirable to appoint him quickly without holding a public competition.
There are other people of whom I had experience myself—I refer to private companies; I admit it is not quite the same thing—who are absolutely first-class but who for some strange reason, refuse to go up for the competition. When I discussed this matter with the Minister, he did not feel that subsection (2) (a) should be used as an escape route at all. When he appoints the members of the Board and when he addresses them at the first meeting, I am quite sure he will make it quite clear. This is not an escape route for nepotism or for the appointment of people who are friends of the Board. When they use the term "specialised", it means some really specialised qualification.
For example, it does not mean that because you cannot get an ordinary electrical engineer, of whom there are thousands, because you cannot find one immediately, you will appoint an individual. He would not be regarded as a person having specialised qualifications, even though electrical engineering is practised only by a tiny minority.
I have expressed to the House the Minister's feelings about this. He does not intend it to be used as an escape route; it is to be used only on a rare occasion. I know friends who had experience of making appointments in public companies which are not State companies but which by virtue of their position in the community and their reputation, have to observe the same rules in regard to their behaviour as State companies observe. Really big companies whose reputation is very high particularly in the making of appointments have been forced to take action on the lines of this subsection. I think the Minister put the section in with that in view.
I would appeal to the Minister to convey the feelings of this House to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He may be able to get him to change his mind on this section. First of all, I found that over the past 20 years in making appointments to professorial posts, we are lucky if we have two or three candidates. I hold that all professorial posts are posts for which specialised qualifications not commonly held are required. I take it that any educationist or research worker will agree with me on that definition. We have our experience of the past that where we get at most, two or three applicants we feel we have done very well. Therefore, I take it the Minister would not look with favour on the university if it suddenly decided to designate all professorships as posts for which specialised qualifications are required and need not be advertised. I suggest that in any of these bodies, the further he keeps away from the prima donnas, the better. He will be far better off without them.
It is necessary to grab experts quickly. You can make quick appointments. It may take two months by means of a public competition but then, under subparagraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section 34 you have the escape clause which says you can make an appointment for a limited period of two years for any post and a permanent appointment can be made any time within that period. Therefore, I do not see any reason for that, either.
I think it is very bad to legislate and then to tell the group: "You must not use this." Maybe the Minister will tell that to the first Board but how about subsequent Boards? They will not have the benefit of the Minister's interpretation of the statute. In any case, his interpretation of the statute is not worth the paper it is written on. Once the statute leaves this House, it is that that counts.
I would draw attention to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) which reads as follows:
an appointment consisting of the promotion of a person who is already an officer of the Institute, other than an officer holding an office to which paragraph (b) of this subsection relates.
It is regarded here as perfectly normal that an appointment dealing with a promotion need not be advertised. In a university, we must regard professorships as promotions for cetrain lectureships. Consequently, there would be no need to advertise that. The lecturer could automatically be promoted. Therefore, in regard to public appointments, those in glasshouses should not throw stones at the university.
Perhaps I could end the discussion by saying I shall draw the attention of the Minister to subsection (2) (a). In view of what has been said, I shall ask him to examine the effect of this section if, for example, it turns out that for people even with relatively specialised knowledge there are so few applying that the Board might get into the habit of avoiding competitions. In other words, the subsection might be used wrongly simply because of events in relation to the number of persons available for any particular appointment. These events might show so few were coming along that one might as well appoint them all in that way. Therefore, it might be safer to reconsider this subsection.
I am surprised that Senator Quinlan, in speaking to us about this section, will not read it as it is set out in the Bill. He says you can grab an expert for a while and then, under paragraph (c) of subsection (2), you can appoint him permanently. He is debarred from being appointed.
"An office to which paragraph (b) of this subsection relates." That debars him from appointment. That is specifically prohibited by paragraph (c).
It is not a promotion to make a temporary person permanent. If you have any doubts about it, you can claim £50 a year more for temporary——
The Senator is only twisting it.
The Senator does not understand English.
I understand it better than the Senator over there does.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
To delete subsecton (4).
Under this subsection, a Minister may designate any office in the service of the Institute as an office of special responsibility. This is one of the few points queried in the other House. The answer given by the Minister was that this was necessary for a type of loose salary control. To my mind this seems to be using a sledge-hammer to kill a flea. Surely the Minister, being responsible for the Vote for the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards in the Dáil, receives submissions from the Institute as to its requirements for the following year, its budget, and so on? If the Institute is paying extravagant salaries, and so on, surely the Minister has his remedy there? This is merely designating an office and it seems to be a completely roundabout way of achieving that. Again, it could leave itself open to much abuse. We need not go into that. There is no point in inserting clauses which have almost no application and which will rarely, if ever, be used to achieve something.
I feel Senator Quinlan's amendment should be supported. Subsection (3) of Section 34 is quite clearly admirable:
The Institute shall from time to time determine the numbers, grades, remuneration, tenure of office, and conditions of service of the members of the staff of the Institute.
Senator Quinlan is moving to have subsection (4) deleted. As he pointed out, it enables the Minister, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), to say that a certain post shall be one of special responsibility and shall carry whatever salary the Minister likes.
In educational circles in Britain, in secondary schools, it is often found necessary, in order to hold a teacher of mathematics or science, to appoint him to a rather fictitious post of special responsibility which is really a roundabout way of giving him a bonus of £100 a year. I do not like to see a subsection in this Bill which might easily be used as a roundabout way of giving a bonus to a special person. I would accept the Minister's assurances that there is no such intention but I do not feel that is a sufficient justification. for the retention of the subsection. I am afraid that if the power is given, it may be used. I do not feel it is a good subsection. Therefore, I support Senator Quinlan on this.
I think the purpose of this subsection is to enable the Minister, when the new Institute commences its administration, to ensure that, say, the two highest officers in the Institute are not paid salaries either higher or lower than those paid for comparable work in other State companies, after making allowances for whatever particularly distinguishes the work in the Institute. When there are a great number of State companies, it is always desirable, if possible, to have some sort of comparable salary structure at the very highest levels, the others being determined, generally, by negotiations between the associations representing the employees and the directors themselves, but in the case of the higher officers, it is desirable to have some comparable figure to work on. Obviously, allowances have to be made in relation to the particular company and its objectives. That is the purpose of this and I think it is a reasonable one.
I should like to say something about what the Minister has just said and with which I should like to agree. If the purpose of this section is to enable people with higher qualifications to be attracted to our services, whatever they may be, by paying them proper salaries, it is very commendable and very desirable. Undoubtedly, in many of our organisations, especially academic or cultural organisations, such as museums and galleries, we are not putting up the proper salaries or the proper conditions to attract men of higher qualifications or higher specialised qualifications. I should like to stand up tonight to say that not only in connection with this Institute but many of our other institutions. If the section does not achieve that object, I should like to see some section being put into other Bills which will enable Ministers to have salaries and conditions instituted in the future which will attract the people with these qualifications we so badly need.
I regret I am not at all convinced by the specious argument made by the Minister in justification of the incorporation of this subsection. The Minister's argument briefly is that its purpose is to enable the Minister to ensure that certain higher officers in this company will be paid salaries which will not be out of line with salaries of corresponding officers in corresponding employment in other semi-State companies. That would be all right if we knew what was meant by "offices of special responsibility". If the Minister indicates two offices for which it is desired to control the salary, there is no reason why that cannot be set down in black and white, that in regard to the director and whoever else is to be the other officer, the salary shall be fixed from time to time by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It could be left at that.
This is a much more sweeping subsection to enable the Minister to achieve parity with the salaries of employees in various other State bodies. It says "notwithstanding any other provision in this section," and "any other provision in this section" is a requirement that every person appointed shall have a competent knowledge of Irish. Why is it that the persons who are to be appointed to the two highest positions will not be required to have a competent knowledge of Irish, whereas every other person to be appointed without exception, whether he has specialised qualifications or not, must have a competent knowledge of Irish? I should like to know the reason for that.
It is the usual practice with regard to appointments——
The Minister should turn that record off.
Reading through the Dáil Reports, it can be seen that the main puprpose of the section was to ensure that those employed by the Institute were not paid higher salaries than those in other institutions. I do not think the idea is as Senator McGuire believes, of making the Institute pay proper salaries. It is to keep them in line and make sure they do not pay too much. If the Minister wanted to control the top salaries, and that is reasonable enough, it should be possible to draft the section in a certain way, that the salary of the chief officer shall be fixed in consultation with the Minister. If the chief officer is getting so much, the other salaries will fall into line accordingly. Certainly the Board cannot go very far when it has to come, cap in hand, to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and then to the Minister for Finance to get allowances every year. I appeal to the Minister in the interests of clear drafting to see that this section is deleted altogether.
Might I point out that the subsection as it is phrased provides for far more power than would be necessary to do the things the Minister said were intended because paragraph (a) says that the Minister may designate any office in the service of the Institute as an office of special responsibility? "Any office"—that could mean the chief bottlewasher, or the head charwoman, and if you link that with paragraph (c), the Minister is given the right to decide the remuneration, tenure of office and conditions of service of persons appointed to offices so designated. That is asking for very sweeping powers, far more sweeping than are necessary for the requirements mentioned by the Minister. I feel a redrafting of this along much narrower lines would give us a more acceptable subsection and I appeal to the Minister to think about it before Report Stage.
I think if the Minister put in "The Minister may designate not more than two offices in the service of the Institute..." it would give the control of the top salaries which the Minister is seeking.
I shall recommend to the Minister, that he consider making that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:
In subsection (5), to delete lines 45 to 47 inclusive.
The first part of subsection (5) provides that all persons appointed to the clerical grade shall possess a competent knowledge of Irish and I agree with that. Then it says: "In making appointments to the other posts preference shall be given to persons possessing a competent knowledge of Irish." As far as scientific work is concerned, a competent knowledge of French, German or Russian is far more relevant than a competent knowledge of Irish. I should expect that, in making an appointment, the Board would have a scale of marking and would allow so many bonus marks for a knowledge of French and German. I have no objection to allowing probably the same number of bonus marks as would be given for French and German to a competent knowledge of Irish. I am worried whether the section might be used to exclude candidates from competing for the posts. In other words, is it the intention that there should be a qualifying examination in Irish first and then the competitors will then have to be selected from those who qualified or will certain bonus marks be given?
The intention is that certain bonus marks will be given for a competent knowledge of Irish. There is nothing to prevent the Board insisting upon a knowledge of French. If the only person who spoke French had all the other qualifications and did not speak Irish, he would get the job.
I should like to make the point that there are two very clear different situations under the section. One is that nobody should be appointed to the clerical staff without a competent knowledge of Irish. The other part says that preference will be given to a person who, in the opinion of the Board, has a competent knowledge of Irish. There is no section which says that the members of the Board shall have a competent knowledge of Irish. It is quite possible that not one of them will have a single word of Irish. Therefore, their opinion as to whether a man has a competent knowledge of Irish or not may be absolutely worthless.
Ní ceart post a thúirt don té a bhfuil Gaeilge aige nuair is féidir le daoine eile an obair a dhéanamh níos fearr. Sin é an fáth nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge ag dul chun cinn sa tír seo. Bhíomar ag caint i mBéarla i rith an tráthnóna. Táimid ag cur isteach san mBille seo go gcaithfear daoine amach nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu. An bhfuil Gaeilge ag an Aire féin?
In my opinion, this whole business is the height of hypocrisy. I do not believe that all these provisions put into Bills will do one thing for the Irish language. They do nothing for it except to repel the people who might be in the forefront of the drive to restore Irish at least as a second spoken language of this country. The educated people and people who should be in the forefront of that drive are completely repelled by this compulsory provision for appointments of all kinds.
It is the height of hypocrisy in view of the fact that we have been debating this Bill all day in English to insist that clerical officers should have a competent knowledge of Irish and that persons in other grades should get the job if their knowledge of Irish is better than that of somebody else. Everybody who has been to a secondary school knows of the boy or girl who was bright at mathematics and poor at languages. Indeed, that boy or girl could be of great use to the Institute. He or she could bring this Institute in its research activities to a discovery which might employ many hundreds of people in this country, but they, as always, are to be excluded because they are bad at languages. It is just a matter of "Wrap the Green Flag round me, Boys". We want people to work and do away with the sort of hypocrisy epitomised in this section.
I well know the answer I will get from Senators opposite. They will say I am demeaning the language. I am not. I think I have some commonsense. I can stand in this House and say that the Minister himself cannot speak the Irish language. In putting through a piece of legislation, he is seeing to it that young boys and girls who are bad at languages will not have an opportunity of serving their country as clerical or higher officers in the Institute.
May I ask if we have been told anything about the hours?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It has been stated that the House would sit to finish this business and deal with the Cork Gas Order as well.
Is deacair liom a bheith foidhneach le cuid den chaint a rinneadh cúpla nóimeat ó shoin. Sé an tuiscint is túisce atá le fáil as an méid cainte a bhí i leith Gaeilge ag cuid desna Seanadóirí ná an duine gur theip air Gaeilge a fhoghlaim gurb é sin an duine is cliste ar eolaíocht, ar mhatamaitic agus ar neithe eile.
Tá taithí agam féin ar oideachas agus cúirsaí oideachais agus is é an tuairim atá tagtha agam agus deimhniú fachta agam air an macléinn nach féidir leis a dhóthain Gaeilge a fhoghlaim chun gnáthchómhrá a dhéanamh gur "dud" é sin pé cáilíochtaí eile a bhíonn foghlamtha aige. Sin é an fhírinne. Is féidir le leanaí Gaeilge a labhairt. Is féidir le daoine fásta Gaeilge a labhairt agus is féidir le daoine aosta Gaeilge a labhairt. Bhíos féin ag caint le bean óg ón nGearmáin a raibh oiread Gaeilge aici agus a bhí agam féin. Níl foidhne agamsa leis an dteoiric sin toisc go bhfuil Gaeilge ag duine nach bhfuil an duine sin chomh cliste le haon duine eile. Deirimse é seo—gur comhartha é ar neamhéifeacht inchinne agus ar neamhéifeacht staidéir ar éinne a ghabhann tré mheán-scoil agus a thagann amach gan a bheith ar a chumas a dhóthain Gaeilge a labhairt chun gnáthchómhrá a dhéanamh. Sin é an fírinne agus ní féidir é a shéanadh.
Ní haon leithscéal maidir le gan Gaeilge a labhairt a rá gur cliste daoine toisc nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu. Sin cuid den teagasc atá ar siúl ag daoine. Admhaím go bhfuil a lán dí-chéille á labhairt i dtaobh Gaeilge. Admhaím nach bhfuilimid in Éirinn dáiríre ár ndóthain in aon chor agus comhairlaím do dhaoine a chreideann a mhalairt gur ceart dóibh dul go dtí tí ósta áirithe san gcathair seo oíche Shathairn seo chugainn agus éisteacht le fear ag míniú conas ar éirigh leo teanga a bhí marbh ar feadh míle bliain a aithbheochaint agus é chur thar n-ais mar ghnáth theanga na ndaoine in Isráel. Eístidis leis sin. Molaim díbh dul agus éisteach agus annsan beidh tuairim eile agaibh trathnóna.
Is fusa do dhuine caint a dhéanamh mar gheall ar dhaoine nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu agus a rá gur "duds" iad ach nil fhios aige agus níl aon taithí aige ar an slí in ar fhoghluim morán daoine den glún óg an Ghaelige a labhairt. Níl aon taithí aige, do réir mar a deireann sé, ar na constaicí agus ar chomh cruaidh is a bhi sé do morán de na daoine óga ins an tír seo an teanga d'fhoghluim ar scoil.
Nuair a bhí an díospóiréacht againn faoin gCoimisiun a bhí le chur ar bun, do labhair mé le fada ar na deactachraí a bhí ós mo chóir agus i mo shlí agus a bhí i slí mórán daoine óga cosúil liom-sa maidir le labhairt na Gaeilge ar scoil agus Maiteamaic, Laidean agus móran ábhar eile a fhoghluim tré Ghaeilge. Ach is daoine don aos sin nár thug cabhair dos na daoine óga agus don glún atá ag fás anuas anois chun eolas ceart agus cruinn d'fháil ar an dteanga.
Ba cheart don Seanadóir Ó Siochfhradha a coimeád ós chóir a aigne nach bhfuil an chaoi chéanna ag an aos óg ins na ceardscoileanna inniu is atá ag na scoláirí ins na mean scoileanna. Tá mórán daoine go mbéadh cáilíochta an-mhaith acu i Maiteamic agus in Eolaíocht agus a fhoghluimíodar na hábhar sin ins na ceard scoileanna acht nach mbeadh taithí maith acu ar an nGaeilge. Ní ceart, mar sin, pionós a chur ar na daoine nach raibh an deis ceart acu agus nár cuireadh an deis ceart ann dóibh chun an Ghaeilge a labhairt.
Ag caint dúinn ar an Gaeilge, ba cheart go gcoimeádfadh an Seanadóir Ó Siochfhradha i gcuimhne nach bhfuil focal di ag an Aire atá i láthair nó fiú ag an Taoiseach.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 34 stand part of the Bill."
Ba mhaith liom a iarraidh ar an Aire, ó thárla nach mbeidh postanna áirithe oscailte don phobal go léir, do réir fo-alt (1) agus fo-alt (2), an bhfuil sé in aigne a fhógairt ins na nuachán go bhfuil na postanna ar fáil?
The question of advertisements is a matter for the Institute. There is nothing in the Bill about it.
Ní dhéanfaidh sé sin an gnó. Tá Bille á phlé againn anois agus ba chóir go mbeadh daighniú intí sa chás seo. Ba chóir go mbeadh daighniú againn ón Aire go bhfoillseofar ins na páipéiri nuacháin go bhfuil na postanna ar fáil chun go mbeidh fhios ag an saol Fodhlach go bhfuil na postanna san ann.
Do bhí Bille eile ós cóir an Tí seo le déanaí agus bhíomar ag caint mar gheall ar na nuacháin in ar chóir fógraí áirithe a fhoillsiú iontu. Dúirt Seanadóiri áirithe, ag an am sin, go mba chóir na fógrai sin d'fhoillsiú ins an Cork Examiner, freisin.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
Question proposed: "That Section 35 stand part of the Bill."
Cad na thaobh go bhfuil an tAlt seo ins an mBille? Nuair a bhí an Bille Carthanas ag dul tríd an Tí see, bhíomar a chur bórd ar bun an-chosúil leis an Institiud atá á chur ar bun againn faoin mBille seo. Ní raibh aon foráil ins an mBille sin mar gheall ar "superannuation". Ba mhaith liom go n-innseoidh an tAire dúinn cad na thaobh go bhfuil sé riachtanach na foralácha ins an Alt seo a chur isteach in san mBille seo.
This scheme is the usual scheme inserted in all Bills promoting State companies nowadays. It is in standard form. It provides for a superannuation scheme on an approved model. There is no change in this, in general, from other superannuation schemes.
We are getting very tired—to revert to English in order to hasten the progress of the passage of this Bill through the House—of the answer that "this is common form" and "this is stock", and so on. The plain fact of the matter is that we established under the Charities Bill a body to be known as the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests. We formed them into a Board and made them a body corporate with power to sue and be sued, and all the other incidentals and attributes of bodies corporate. Then we provided staff.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice, who is said by the Minister for Justice to be a legal expert, assured this House that although this independent body was being established under the Charities Bill, not answerable to anybody, it was unnecessary to put in provisions relating to superannuation because the Superannuation Acts would apply to it. Can the Minister for Transport and Power give us any good reason for the insertion of this provision here? I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice is correct but if he is correct, why is this provision here, apart from the reason that it is common form?
I do not propose to give the Senator any reason. I simply say that in this Bill we wish to have a superannuation clause and that is that.
I think the Minister is right.
Ba chóir do'n Aire "Sin sin" a rá.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 36.
I move amendment No. 15:
In subsection (1), line 45, to delete "industrial" and substitute "applied".
This is rather a minor amendment but I think it is necessary to enlarge the scope in relation to grants which may be given for the training of persons in applied research. "Industrial research" is far too narrow a term here. I think it would be well worth while to broaden it slightly and make it "applied research". It provides more scope to the Council of the Institute to give certain scholarships for the training of young scientists who, one day, will be working in industrial research but whose training is more general at the scholarship stage and who are studying for an advanced degree, M.Sc. or Ph.D. You could not call that industrial research in any strict sense.
The Institute would be very well advised to assist such students, just as the Agricultural Institute has set a very admirable headline by giving scholarships to young students to carry out post-graduate studies in fields that seem to be rather remotely connected with agriculture, like statistics and the purer forms of research work. The idea is that the Institute wishes to have a supply of these people available for staffing the Agricultural Institute later on. In the same way, this Institute can contribute by scholarships to the general post-graduate training of students who afterwards, we hope, will play a strong role in industrial research.
I would urge the Minister to consider this matter but for the opposite reason to that expressed by Senator Quinlan. The fact is that it is applied research with which this body will be concerned. For example, industrial research might include the work being done by An Foras Talúntais, or the Economic Research Institute, or indeed any other body. The word covers a wide variety of things and I think the Minister should accept this.
I am inclined to support this amendment. I recommend to the Minister that the matter be reconsidered to make it as applicable as possible and as wide as possible.
I am afraid the Minister has made up his mind. The Long Title states that it is to promote industrial research and the Minister is advised, and I agree with him, that if we use the phrase "applied research" it would cover, in addition to the industrial sphere, research work of all kinds, agricultural, medical, social and even political research. I do not think it was ever intended that the Institute should become involved in any research outside the industrial field. I think it is also true to say that industrial research relating to inventions shall form part of the industrial research and standardisation of commodities. That can be either applied or pure research. It is quite clear from the rest of the Bill that the Board's power will be fairly wide in regard to engaging in the exploitation of inventions or discovering new processes. I do not think anybody need be worried by the term "industrial research." It is sufficiently wide to be satisfactory while the term "applied research" would go beyond industrial research.
What is really wanted here is research into the scientific problems of industry. That is the phrase that is wanted. "Industrial research" is too indefinite a term in my view, if we really want to be accurate. The fact that it is in the Long Title is different from its being in the section. It is a matter of research into the scientific problems of industry and not research into works study or the financial problems of industry or the various other problems arising in industry. This Bill is concerned with the scientific side of industry. It is no harm to be precise and accurate when these things are being drafted.
Higher industry needs trained engineers and chemists and very many other trained scientists. Would it be possible for the Institute to grant post-graduate scholarships to enable students to follow regular post-graduate courses?
I think it would be possible for the Institute to make grants of that kind. So far as the term "industrial research" is concerned, if Senators will examine the original Section 6, they will see it covers a very wide field. I do not think anybody need be afraid of its being too restrictive.
I accept the Minister's interpretation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In subsection (2), to delete all words from and including "undertaking" in line 47 to the end of subsection and substitute "engaged in research".
I do not wish to see the grants narrowed unduly because it says here "undertaking research of a kind which the Institute is itself authorised to undertake." The Institute is very much tied down to routine research and the lower realm of applied research. If that were the case, the Institute could not give research grants or assistance to higher applied research, and without higher applied research, the Institute is doomed to failure. If that half-sentence could be research, and, without higher applied discretion of the Board, it would be better. The Board being largely staffed with those who have been appointed because they can make a contribution to industrial research, it can be taken that they will not give away money unnecessarily or to research which will not pay off in the industrial field. I would ask the Minister to consider widening the scope of this subsection.
I think the same remarks apply. The section enables the Institute to provide scholarships and other awards or render assistance, financial or otherwise, in relation to industrial research defined on a very broad basis. They would be able to give grants for higher applied research.
The Minister is still qualifying the term by putting in the word "industrial".
I am afraid the Minister does really insist——
The Minister is not prepared to trust our judgment very far in the use we may make of our yearly finances. I think it is unnecessary to tie them down in this way. It does minimise the rôle that higher applied research must play in the development of their resources. Perhaps the Minister would reconsider this on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 36 agreed to.
Sections 37 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 17:
To add a new subsection as follows:—
"( ) A comprehensive summary report of the work of the Institute shall be prepared every five years."
There is provision for a customary yearly report. We get so many of these reports flooding in upon us that we really ignore them. It is rarely we see a debate taking place in the House based on these reports, apart from the debate on C.I.E. in March last. It would be well worth while in respect of all statutory bodies like the Institute if we had a five-yearly report which then would be a completed affair. It would be one which either the Dáil or Seanad, or both, might very properly take some time to debate. There is such a provision, I believe, in the Institute for Advanced Studies, where they have to prepare a ten-yearly report. It provides that where ordinary members were not in a position to check up every year, their members would value receiving a five-yearly report. They would be able to see how the Institute was progressing.
I think it will be sufficient if the Institute provides an annual report. It is quite possible to read a succession of annual reports in order to see what progress is being made over a period of two years. In respect to matters where it is considered desirable, both private companies and statutory companies give statistics relating to some years back in any one annual report. I have no doubt this Institute will refer back to the report of previous years wherever it is desirable to show some particular progress made. The Senator is going far beyond reason in asking for this as a section in a Bill. There is nothing to prevent the Institute, if it so wishes, to provide an annual report of some kind for the sake of showing the trend in relation to some particular research by issuing a paper about it. There is nothing to prevent it doing that.
I have wide experience of writing reports and I can assure the Minister that it is far easier to have a report covering a long period than a short period. In the year, you will have projects unfinished and you will have other projects which are just finishing from the previous year and so on. In regard to any research effort, you have really got to look at it from the point of view of a reasonable span of time in order to get some gauge of what has been happening. A five-yearly report would not just be five annual reports simply taken together. It would be a comprehensive summary of the really big things that happened in that period. It is far different from a C.I.E. report, which is a mass of statistics. The amount of statistics we can produce out of a research institute is infinitesimal.
It has to be related to industry, though.
I do not believe it would unduly strain the resources of the Institute. Any high ranking officer in the Institute could produce a readable report, in probably not more than 30 or 40 pages, in a week. Would the Minister give any indication that he would reconsider this matter?
No. The Minister thinks that the annual report is quite sufficient.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.
Question proposed: "That Section 43 stand part of the Bill."
Maidir le fó-alt (5) den Alt seo, ní féidir leis an Institiúid níos mó ná £5,000 a chaitheamh ar aon "invention" amháin. Ní dóigh liomsa gur leor an suim sin. Sin é mo thuairim. Más mian linn sa Teach seo forbairt a dhéanamh ar obair an Institiúid seo, ba cheart dúinn muinín a bheith againn as an mBord agus cead a thúirt dóibh faoin mBille seo i bhfad níos mó ná £5,000 a chaitheamh ar aon "invention" a bheadh fé bhráid acu.
I do not think the Minister is prepared to go any further than he has in this section with regard to the amount made available.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 44.
Government amendment No. 18:
18. To delete subsection (1) and substitute the following new subsection:—
"(1) For the purpose of promoting the safe use by the public of a commodity intended for sale to the public (or for incorporation in any other commodity intended for such sale) the Minister may, by an order under this section, declare that it shall be unlawful to manufacture, assemble or sell that commodity unless it complies with the standard specification declared by the Institute for that commodity or with a specification or standard of quality prescribed by a Minister of State or with any condition specified in such order which the Minister considers necessary or desirable."
This is an official Government amendment to make it clear that in cases where a Minister uses his power to insist that a commodity complies with a standard specification, he should only do this in the interest of public safety and that it goes beyond the previous definition of "in the public interest."
I think this is an amendment where the Government are reducing the scope of the section. I do not know whether it is a good thing or not. There might be many cases where it would not be in the interests of public safety that it should be unlawful to manufacture articles but it might be in the public interest that these articles might not be manufactured. They might be frauds. I feel such articles should not be put on the market. Perhaps the Minister is unwise in reducing the scope of this section.
Táimid tar-éis fó-alt (5) d'alt 34 a chur isteach san mBille. Mar sin, ní féidir le buachaill nó le cailín gur mbaith leo é bheith ag obair san Institiúd muna bhfuil Gaeilge acu.
Níl aon bhaint aige sin——
Cad na thaobh nach bhfuil an leasú i nGaeilge?
This section appears to be the only worthwhile part of the Bill. It is the only section under which the fruits of this Institute will come home to the public at large. Under the other sections of the Bill, standards can be set and they can remain there like model standards which will never be attained.
This vests in the Minister power to prohibit the manufacture of some commodities which do not conform with the standard set in the interests of public safety. I take the view that Senator Donegan takes, that this amendment does not widen the powers of the Minister. I think it reduces or narrows the powers of the Minister to commodities which might, in their use, be a danger to the public.
I should have thought that where the Minister was satisfied it was in the public interest to make orders because too low a standard was being achieved by manufacturers of these types of commodities and, apart altogether from the question of safety and value for money and, on the question of value for money, under the section as it stood he could say: "The public are not getting a commodity of a particular standard; I shall fix a standard and it will be unlawful for people to manufacture commodities which do not reach that standard." I do not favour the amendment. I would much prefer the section as it stood.
While I do not often agree with arguments put forward by the last speaker, I am afraid I do agree with him in some of the things he has just said.
Take the most humble commodity one can think of.
Take concrete blocks. If it means there is no responsibility to have some standard in, say, the manufacture of concrete blocks, it might be argued that they could ultimately add up to danger. Suppose people were to make concrete blocks from sand and water and a twenty to one shake of cement. Somebody who pretended to be uninitiated asked what was the "one" for. If the whittling down of responsibility, as I regard it, should add up to that sort of thing, I do not think it would be good. I should like to feel that, if it should add up to some difficulty in the future, the Minister for Industry and Commerce would mend the matter. I can see certain dangers.
It was never intended when this Bill was drafted that this section should extend to anything except protecting the public from something that was unsafe. If the Minister were to extend his power and engage in prescribing compulsory standards in regard to a great number of goods, he would require an army of officials for inspection purposes. It would be quite beyond possibilities.
I do not agree with the Minister. There are many commodities for which at the moment there are many sets of standards. Take whiskey. Take a publican who "racks" whiskey, as they call it, who adds distilled water to whiskey, who adds it until the whiskey has deteriorated in gravity to a certain set figure— in this country at the moment 33 per cent. under proof: it is unlawful to do anything else. That publican, in my view, is in no less preferential position than the manufacturer except that if he is watering the whiskey, his customers will know it, whereas if the manufacturer is not including the proper percentage of wool or nylon in a garment and puts in a cheaper material, if there is a general deterioration by manufacturers in the country, housewives or persons who wear these articles will not know in fact that they are receiving an article of low quality.
I feel that the keeping up of the standards of manufactured goods in this country is most important and that the full work of this Institute would include the keeping up of those standards. More important still, so long as we have the things that were mentioned tonight and were out of order, tariff walls—have it any way you like, whether good or bad; I know they are accepted in every country in the world and therefore there is no point in debating whether or not they should be there—the consumer is entitled to be protected just as surely as the consumer of whiskey is protected at present.
If the Minister says it was never intended, then I must wonder. This Bill has now reached the semi-final stage on its way through the Seanad and a trip back to the Dáil does not mean very much. At this stage it could very well be said—I will not say it—that the Government are slithering in an amendment whereby the whole arbitrary power, whatever it might be, of this Institute is being nullified.
Senator O'Reilly mentions concrete blocks. It is one particular commodity that comes to mind immediately. I remember well an engineer who is now a priest. He went to a site where they were building 150 houses. His test was simple. He took up a concrete block to the height of his shoulders and dropped it to the ground. If it broke, he condemned the lot. That was a simple test. You could test thousands of concrete blocks. In this country, just as in every country, things are becoming standardised. You have the large unit of production. As months and years go by, you will have larger units of production and a smaller number of factories to produce the same quantity of finished goods.
Now that we have the Factories Act, now that we have the Register of Manufacturers and now that we have all those regularised Government agencies, we should have no difficulty in seeing to it that the standard of manufactured goods at least in this country is kept up to the level to which it should be kept. I feel that this amendment does nullify all the good work we hoped for from the future Institute and the existing Institute. I feel it might have to be opposed.
I would oppose this amendment. I cannot accept the Minister's statement that this is a mistake in the original draft of the Bill. The title of the Bill is "An Act to make better provision for the promotion of industrial research and the standardisation of commodities, processes...". I think the Minister, in introducing this Bill, was very conscious of what he was doing in this section. There must have been criticism of what he proposed to do and he has now decided to take action and to take the teeth out of the Bill. The only teeth in the Bill are in this section. I do not agree with an amendment which proposes to take the teeth out of the Bill and simply water it down like the whiskey.
The members of the Opposition will have to take my personal word for it that it was never intended in this Bill to give power of compulsory standardisation for goods, except where an element of public safety was involved. It is only a drafting amendment.
If we take the Minister's personal word for this, then the Bill has passed through the Dáil in a different form from that in which we are now being asked to accept it. That gives rise to a very big question. We can put down an amendment on Report Stage and discuss it. I feel that is what must be done because it must be remembered that this is the first deliberative assembly that has looked at this Bill on the basis of the teeth being drawn from it, as Senator Murphy said. In fact the Institute is being left a largely nebulous organisation which does not try to preserve any real standards. Therefore, the Minister may take it that there will be an amendment on Report Stage.
The Senator's statement that it leaves the Institute a nebulous organisation is sheer nonsense.
As Senator Murphy said, this amendment takes the teeth out of the Bill. I think we could describe it as a "mantach" Bill. The Minister of course, would not understand that but that in fact is what we are getting. Some people would not believe that this Bill is no good. It is just so much window dressing in a general election year.
For instance, under subsection (1) the Institute would be permitted to lay down a standard life for electric bulbs. It is well known that the life of electric bulbs is nothing short of scandalous. They go almost as quickly as you put them in. Irish manufactured bulbs——
Everybody who supplies the Minister's household knows he is supplying a Minister of State.
That is a lie. The Senator knows I get no special supply of bulbs.
On a point of order, is it correct to impute a lie to the Senator?
I apologise. I said the Senator was incorrect when he said that I was supplied with special bulbs that did not break. However, the Senator can proceed.
The Minister is the man who took off his coat when somebody suggested that he had supplied incorrect figures.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Let us come now to amendment No. 18.
Under the section as it stands, the Institute could specify for electric light bulbs. That is desirable. Under the amendment, however, they cannot do that and, in my view, that is a great loss. It is withdrawing from the Institute and the Minister for Industry and Commerce a power which many people would like them to have and more particularly like them to exercise effectively. This amendment drains off any use there might otherwise have been in the Bill.
Amendment put and declared carried, Senators Donegan, O'Quigley and Murphy dissenting.
Government Amendment No. 19:
Before subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) The Minister may, if he thinks fit, limit the application of an order made under this section to a commodity intended for sale to the public in any country or countries specified in the order or for incorporation in any other commodity intended for such sale."
I think this amendment is fairly clear. It means that the Minister may make an order under the section regarding a commodity intended for sale in any country or countries specified in the order or for incorporation in any other commodity intended for such sale. Goods exported from this country do not necessarily have to come under the orders because of different rules in the countries to which they are exported and it may be necessary to have different specifications.
This amendment is tied up with amendment No. 18. It is quite true, for instance, that if the Institute wish to limit the use of a commodity in its purer form for safety reasons, they might permit the use of the commodity when it is incorporated in another commodity so that this amendment is consequential on the previous amendment, but amendment No. 18 must be challenged on Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 45.
I move amendment No. 20:
In lines 43 and 44 to delete "with the approval of the Minister."
I wish to delete these words because it is contrary to established practice that the publication of scientific information should have to have the consent of any political authority. It might be perfectly legitimate in the case of codes of recommended practice but here we have two different topics tied together, the publication of scientific and technical information on the one hand, and codes of recommended practice, on the other. I would ask the Minister between this and Report Stage to look at the matter and see if it is possible to segregate them. Perhaps my amendment goes a little too far but I would be quite happy if the Minister could bring in an amendment which would safeguard the publication of scientific and technical information by the Institute from any suspicion of its being subject to any type of political censorship.
Senator Quinlan has a point here. Half truths can be more dangerous than anything else. When taken in conjunction with other facts, they can be no facts at all. Therefore, in relation to the release of certain information, there is a necessity for a safeguard. I know perhaps that consumers' organisations might not agree with that. It is true that it is necessary. At the same time, there is the point emphasised by Senator Quinlan. The Minister should look at the matter again and should remove from himself the power of blanketing information as a result of research.
Senator Carter was interested in the Soviet Union. The difference between the Soviet Union and the West is that the Soviet Union keep for themselves all the information and release only that which they wish to release. On the other hand, the policy of America is to release all useful scientific research data they discover.
The two policies are as clear as crystal.
If that is the case, there is no need for the Official Secrets Act in this country.
The Senator is getting more and more hysterical as the evening goes on but perhaps by midnight——
Would the Minister like to stay until midnight?
I am quite prepared to. Documents and information of this kind issued by the Institute would be very similar, I understand, to a standard specification. It is felt the Minister should have the power to restrain, if he so wishes, publication of scientific information. I will ask the Minister to consider before Report Stage whether by any chance the term "scientific and technical information" covers too much ground and whether it is intended to cover information in regard to standard practice and standard specification and whether he thinks that section might be altered. It is quite obvious that the Minister has to keep some control over information which is equivalent to a standard specification.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 45 agreed to.
Sections 46 and 47 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 5th July, 1961.
