Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Jul 1996

Vol. 148 No. 11

National Standards Authority of Ireland Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The National Standards Authority of Ireland is responsible for establishing standards for a wide range of products and processes and for the certification of these standards. This work is undertaken in direct co-operation with Irish industry together with international regulatory authorities under the auspices of the European Commission and other standards agencies which have a recognised worldwide remit. In the interests of individual consumers and to facilitate growth in trade and commerce, the mutual recognition and achievement of established standards is an absolute essential in the contemporary world.

The main purpose of the Bill is to establish the NSAI as an independent and autonomous agency and in so doing to underpin and enhance its role in the development and certification of a wide range of standards. The need to establish this agency on a legally independent basis results from a requirement of the European Commission and the necessity for the NSAI to have an administrative structure which is seen to be independent of all other client agencies. The current administrative and operational status of the NSAI, as a committee within the ambit of Forfás, is not in line with these requirements. Accordingly, this legislation will give effect to the change in its status which my Department has been independently advised as being legally necessary to underpin the certification work undertaken by the NSAI.

The principal purpose of standardisation is to facilitate trade and to establish common criteria for particular products or processes. Standardisation seeks to achieve the protection of consumer interests by ensuring adequate and consistent quality of goods and services; economy of effort, materials and energy consumption in the production of goods or the provision of services; enhancement of public safety, health and protection of the environment and the elimination of technical barriers to trade.

The agreement of all interested parties is essential if the benefits of standardisation are to be achieved. The main advantages which agreed standards confer are the limitation of unnecessary variation in design and manufacturing procedures; giving more stability to production and marketing for the manufacturer and simplifying procurement for the purchaser; the interchangeability of component parts giving access to wider markets for the manufacturer and a choice of suppliers to the purchaser; improved communications and information exchange between the manufacturer and the purchaser by reference to standards documents containing agreed requirements for design and performance and increased consumer confidence that goods ordered will comply with the required criteria and that quality and reliability can be assured.

The degree to which any product or process functions satisfactorily depends on the adequacy of the relevant standard specifications and the assurance of conformity to those standards. This clearly is an increasingly important task and one which has been well delivered to date in this country by the NSAI.

The NSAI currently operates as a semi-autonomous committee of Forfás and was established under section 10 of the Industrial Development Act, 1993. Its essential functions are the promulgation and formulation of standards on behalf of the Minister and the certification of products and processes that comply with these standards. The NSAI was originally set up under section 17 of the Industrial Research and Standards Act, 1961, to assist and advise the board of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards in relation to standards.

In this context the IIRS was required to formulate for the Minister, in accordance with his directions, specifications for such commodities, processes and practices as the Minister may from time to time request; with the consent of the Minister, to declare any specification so formulated to be a standard specification for the commodity process or practice to which it relates; to make recommendations to the Minister as to the provision and use of standard marks for commodities, processes and practices that conform to standard specifications and to test and analyse commodities intended for sale or for use by the public for the purpose of ensuring conformity with standard specifications, encouraging the standardisation of commodities, processes and practices or generally with the object of ascertaining for the public benefit, the characteristics of such commodities.

The 1961 Act provided for the development of a body of standards by reference to existing national and international norms, provided for standards relating to public health and safety and contained powers to make these standards mandatory. It also established an Irish standard mark scheme under which Irish manufacturers can, under licence from the NSAI, demonstrate that their product meets the performance and safety requirements of a particular standard relative to that product.

In discharging its statutory functions, there are two broad categories of service which the NSAI provides — standards development and product and process certification. These services have now become central in their significance and an important aspect in enhancing the competitiveness of our industry and services sectors.

The standards development service provides industry with the opportunity of making an input into national, European and international standards. It does this by means of its standards membership scheme and through its national consultative committees. The standards membership scheme provides industry with up to date information on developments in relation to standards and technical regulations at national, European and international levels. Frequent meetings are held throughout the country at which the standards and technical regulations are explained and individual manufacturers are invited to demonstrate the effects of standards and regulations on their businesses. In addition, NSAI has established 14 consultative committees, each one dedicated to a particular business sector, in which requirements for individual standards or the Irish position in relation to European or international standard proposals is determined.

The certification service operated by NSAI has had a dramatic impact in Ireland over the past five years. The fact that over 1,300 Irish companies are now registered to the ISO 9000 series of standards for quality management systems indicates a clear recognition of the importance of developing and improving our management systems. By the end of 1997 there will be over 2,000 Irish companies registered by NSAI. Each company registered remains subject to a continuing programme of monitoring inspections for as long as its registration is valid.

Product and process certification is also an important service provided by NSAI. With increasing numbers of products being submitted for certification as complying with specified requirements in EU directives, demand for this service is expected to continue to grow. A range of additional EU directives, which seek to reduce the barriers to international trade and give reality to the concept of a common market, are currently under discussion or in the process of being implemented. Compliance with these requirements will involve continuing growth in the service of product certification provided by the NSAI.

The elimination of technical barriers to trade was recognised by the European Union as a priority task in the programme for the completion of the Single Market. Since the adoption by the Council of a new approach to technical harmonisation and standardisation in 1985, the harmonisation of European industrial standards addressed in EU technical legislation has become an essential instrument in achieving this objective.

In 1985 the European Commission recognised that a major problem was being encountered in the development of regulations and directives designed to increase safety and remove barriers to trade across the whole of the European Union. The difficulty specifically related to the inclusion of technical specifications in the text of the regulations and directives. It was decided that they should only specify the essential requirements — quality, performance and safety — and devolve responsibility for the drafting of the relevant standards to the European standardisation bodies. This freed up the process and several new approach directives have since been adopted covering a diverse range of products such as toys, machinery and medical devices. The European standards bodies are given mandates to provide manufacturers of the products concerned with a set of technical specifications recognised in the directives as giving a presumption of conformity to the essential requirements.

In a separate initiative, the Commission has given these harmonised European standards a prominent role in the opening up of public procurement markets. Directives on public supplies and works, telecommunications, transport, energy and water supply require purchasing authorities to refer to national standards, which transpose European standards, with a view to ensuring that manufacturers in all member states have an equal chance to obtain public procurement contracts. In more recent times the EU is negotiating mutual recognition agreements on standards with third countries, of which the US and Canada, New Zealand and Australia and Japan are examples.

The object of these negotiations is to agree terms for mutual recognition in relation to technical specifications laid down in the respective markets of each country and to accept the common testing, certification and marking of products. This will reduce the need for, and cost of, duplicate testing and certification, will open up those markets and will facilitate trade growth between the countries in question.

The NSAI has responded to this increasing role for standardisation. As indicated, it has established 14 consultative committees bringing together interests in various industrial sectors with the objective of monitoring worldwide standards work continuously, identifying projects relevant to Ireland and developing Irish positions relating to them. NSAI is also represented on the three European standardisation bodies. Each of these bodies has up to 5,000 standards projects under review at any one time. NSAI is also represented on the two international standards organisations, the International Standards Organisation, ISO, and the International Electronics Commission, IEC.

While the Authority develops national standards as required, the emphasis of its workload relates to the implementation of European and international standards. In addition, NSAI publishes and distributes a wide range of Irish and international standards, guidebooks and catalogues. It also publishes an annual guide to products and processes certified by NSAI during the year in question. It provides an information and education service for industry relating to standards and regulations applying in various export markets.

As a result of extensive consultation and planning by the European Commission, a more clearly defined European structure for testing and certification is evolving. European standards setting out operating criteria for laboratories, certification and inspection bodies and accreditation bodies have been published as the EN5000 series — under European rules these must be transposed into national standards in each member state. In addition, the Council of Ministers responsible for the internal market adopted a resolution endorsing the key issues of the Commission's document on a global approach to testing and certification. These issues include the development of national accreditation structures, the promotion of the EN 29000 and EN 45000 series of standards relating to quality assurance systems and the operating criteria for laboratories and certification bodies respectively, and the establishment of the European Organisation for Testing and Certification.

Accreditation involves giving national authorities the responsibility of assessing the abilities of test laboratories and certification bodies to properly carry out their tasks. It formally recognises competence by means of third party expert technical assessment against agreed criteria. It also involves regular surveillance and periodic reassessment. Accreditation in Ireland is carried out by Forfás through another autonomous committee, the National Accreditation Board, established under section 10 of the Industrial Development Act, 1993.

A consequence of developments at European level is that national accreditation systems must comply with requirements for the establishment of notified bodies. These are testing laboratories and certification/inspection bodies which are specifically designated by member states and notified to the European Commission to carry out the conformity assessment requirements as set out in the relevant directives. A number of different conformity assessment procedures are set out in the directives. They vary from simple product certification to product design, manufacturing procedures and quality system certification for complex products used, for example, in the medical field.

A key requirement of notified bodies is that, apart from having the necessary technical competence, they should operate independently and impartially and have a separate legal identity. They are expected to conform to operating, including organisational, criteria laid down in the EN 45000 series of standards. In our situation this requires that testing laboratories operated by Forbairt and NSAI certification procedures, and those of other bodies, be accredited within an independent and impartial system. Only in this way can they comply with the 45000 series of standards.

In summary, the objectives of the EN 45000 series of standards require that accreditation functions and certification functions be carried out by authorities which are absolutely independent of one another. Accordingly, under present structures the National Accreditation Board and the National Standards Authority of Ireland — both of which now operate as committees of Forfás — do not meet the key operating and assessment criteria required by the EN 45000 series of standards for such bodies. The National Accreditation Board cannot, in present circumstances, accredit NSAI as a certification body and the integrity of NSAI certificates, including the 1,300 ISO 9000 certificates already issued by them, could potentially be called into question in the continued absence of conformity with legal requirements relating to the operational independence of agencies.

Bearing in mind the necessity for proper accreditation, I have had a number of different approaches examined, including a number put forward by the staff interests in NSAI. I consulted my own legal advisers, the NSAI itself, the National Accreditation Board, the European Organisation for Tests and Certifications and the European Commission. The advice I received was that the setting up of an independent national standards body was necessary. I am, therefore, proposing that responsibility for the accreditation of the laboratories, certification bodies and inspection bodies should remain with Forfás, but that Forfás' responsibility for standardisation and certification matters, at present delegated to the NSAI as a committee of that agency, should be transferred to the NSAI as an independent statutory body under the responsibility of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment.

Section 38 is a centrally important section of the Bill. It deals with the transfer of staff to the new authority. As a result of staff concerns regarding their future terms and conditions of employment, a complete redrafting of section 38 was undertaken on my instructions. Staff representatives requested that they remain as staff of Forfás and be seconded to the NSAI. A fundamental issue was the reason for the establishment of NSAI as an independent body in the first place. It must be accredited under the full terms and conditions attaching to a certification body as set out in the European standard EN 45012. This requires, inter alia, that staff will be independent in the discharge of their functions and, therefore, any control of staff in an operational sense on the part of Forfás would negate this requirement.

Subsubsection (1)(a) and (b) of section 38 provides for the staffing of the authority, and subsection (1)(a) provides fully for the permanent staff to remain as staff of Forfás. They are, however, required to fulfil all their functions in accordance with the directions of the NSAI. This achieves the requirement of accreditation and meets staff interests. Responsibility for all contract staff will transfer fully to the NSAI on the establishment day. Subsection (2) of section 38 guarantees that the terms and conditions relating to tenure of both permanent and contract staff will be no less favourable than they are at present. Subsection (3) guarantees the rights of staff to apply for and be considered for promotion in either Forfás, Forbairt or IDA Ireland. This will ensure that their promotion rights cannot be negatively affected by transferring to the authority. Subsections (4) and (5) give those necessary guarantees that their terms, conditions and scales of pay will not be lessened, and also provides that they can be increased in accordance with any collective agreement negotiated on behalf of the staff.

The provisions of the Bill, as amended by the Dáil, ensure fully that personnel in the NSAI cannot be disadvantaged in any way when, on the passage of this legislation, the agency is established as an autonomous legal entity and is functionally separate from Forfás. In the course of our debate on the Report and Final Stages in the Dáil last week, Opposition spokespersons were gracious in accepting that I had positively addressed fundamental concerns which existed at the outset of consideration of this proposed legislation. I did this by way of amendments which I put down in my own name, and through accepting a number of significant amendments proposed by the deputy leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy O'Rourke, and others. There is now general agreement that, by reference to the constraints placed on me to effect change in the legal status of the NSAI by establishing it as an autonomous entity, these proposals are balanced and fair. I have listened to the concerns of staff representatives and politicians and acted on them.

The Bill also provides the Minister with the right to appoint not more than 13 members to the board of the new authority. The Bill follows the common international approach in requiring that only those persons who are already directly interested and involved in the standardisation process should be considered for representation on the board. It requires that the board comprise the widest range of interests possible, without any one section predominating. It will thus be possible to ensure that consumer interests as well as safety experts will be represented, together with a range of interests of manufacturers and industrialists. The chief executive officer will automatically become a member of the board.

I believe the fullest involvement of staff at all levels of the organisation will enhance morale and increase efficiency. Workers should be facilitated in making the fullest contribution to the operations of the NSAI and be directly involved in its decision making processes. Accordingly, on my own initiative, I have made provision for representation of worker representatives on the board of the NSAI so that they can have the influence and authority to inform decisions, be they of an operational or policy nature. Such worker representation has not been a feature of the NSAI board to date. However, it will now give all employees the confidence to approach the organisational change which is in prospect with renewed assurance and the positive expectation of an even better working environment characterising the newly constituted NSAI.

The autonomous establishment of the NSAI is a significant development. It involves a necessary change in the structure and status of the organisation. That change will enhance its role and ensure that an awareness of the importance of standards and their certification is further profiled nationally and internationally. It will bring the best out of the organisation and ensure its future prosperity through the most effective delivery of its important national task.

I have outlined the main provisions of this Bill and the rationale which gave rise to its introduction. It is not a contentious piece of legislation and has been refined and improved on the course of its passage through the Dáil. It is informed by an increasing focus on the part of the European Union and international agencies on the importance of establishing and achieving product and process standards. That importance reflects the role which agreed and recognised standards now play in facilitating trade growth, economic development and employment creation. When enacted, the legislation will reinforce the independence of the National Standards Authority of Ireland by making its certification and standards development services totally independent of other agencies, charged with delivering different tasks.

The role of standards and their certification is central to the whole process of economic development. This legislation will put the NSAI on a very sound legal and administrative footing. It is important to do this quickly. I commend the Bill with confidence to the Seanad and look forward to constructive and informative debate on its provisions.

I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister of State on its introduction. The Bill is overdue because it is almost 35 years since the industrial research and standards legislation was passed by the Oireachtas. While it served the economy well in the past, it is time the legislation was modernised because of changes in the thrust of economic development in recent years. I was very critical of the complex and convoluted construction of the last Bill the Minister of State brought before this House. However, I compliment him on this occasion because he has clearly set out the objectives of the authority and defined the functions of the board, the chief executive and the administration. The Bill is a very neat piece of legislation and has been well prepared by the Minister of State.

In relation to the title of the Bill, the National Standards Authority of Ireland Bill, I would suggest that a more user-friendly title be found. CERT would be an ideal name, but this has already been applied to the hotel and training authority legislation. However, something of that nature would be advantageous in terms of having an effective title which could be easily distinguished. I am frequently confused by the NSAI and NASA — the North American Space Agency. The NSAI will be involved in international business and, as the development of high technology in Ireland gathers pace and accelerates, perhaps it is time to consider an alternative title. I offer the title CERT as a case in point.

I welcome the legislation which is designed to establish the independent statutory body under the control of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. It is proposed to transfer the functions relating to standards and certification from Forfás to the new Authority. Section 7 specifies much of what is being attempted in this regard. The Authority's main function will be to promote, foster and encourage the use of standards and specifications as a means for improving the technical processes and methods used by industries within the State. Setting down an Irish standards specification, supervising the use of standard marks and related issues are very laudable and important functions of the new authority. I believe the establishment of the new Authority is a timely event. I am glad the Government and the Minister used a specific statutory framework to enable work which needs to be done to be undertaken in an efficient way. It will be distinguishable from other agencies.

Over the past number of years there have been changes in the legislation dealing with industrial promotion. The Industrial Development Authority was broken up and Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland were established. We also have agencies like the Shannon development company and the other development organisations. Business was frustrated by the changes in terms of which agency was responsible for what function. By identifying an authority which will deal with this area of responsibility which, in many respects, is highly specialised and complex, the Minister adopted the right approach which will result in significant changes and important benefits in terms of employment opportunities and prospects for improving the standard of goods and services.

There has been a fairly dramatic increase in the number of innovations and inventions since the new legislation was put in place. Close co-operation between the agencies and the new authority is necessary. Will the Minister indicate the numbers involved in the transfer? Will the new authority include the National Accreditation Board, which is under Forfás? Will it embody some of the functions of Forfás that relate to the activities of the new agency?

I am critical of the lack of Government investment in science and technology over the past number of years. Since 1987 Exchequer funding for science and technology has dropped from about 87 per cent Government funding to approximately 65 or 68 per cent in 1995. The science budget for 1995 was somewhere in the region of £750 million comprising £79 or £80 million in European regional development funding. There has been a substantial increase in the amount of earned income being devoted to the science and technology budget. In 1987 earned income from science and technology was about £20 million. Since then it has increased to in excess of £155 million in 1995. Taking into account the increase in earned income in science and technology and the availability of European regional development funding, State investment in this area is diminishing. This is a retrograde step which this economy will live to regret. We must give the necessary back-up to enable the economy to prosper and thrive, so that more employment opportunities can be created.

I re-emphasise the point that where ERD funding is available and earned income increases substantially, the Government should match it. Rather than diminishing its contribution to the science and technology budget, it should substantially increase it. I make this point in the context of the legislation before us because it will give a further boost to the innovative and technology areas. We should underline the necessity to provide funding, which is essential if innovation, science and technology are to continue to make a valuable contribution to the development of the economy and new jobs.

Is it necessary to have 14 consultative committees? A number of these committees will deal with European standards and international business and some will probably be set up overseas. Perhaps the Minister might see if it is possible to reduce the number of committees, although there may be a particular reason for this number. The 14 consultative committees were proved for in the old legislation and they deal with specific areas. However, with a new streamlined system, it should be possible to reduce the number. By so doing. it will be possible to have a more rationalised and effective mechanism in place. If the Minister convinces me that they are necessary, I will not object.

Some 911 new standards were registered in 1994 which brought the number to well over 3,000 for that year. In addition, it was indicated that ISO, the national quality standard, was being availed of to a great degree here and that 325 companies were registered under the quality and management standards in 1994. These new developments indicate enthusiasm among businesses, especially in high technology ones, to be registered. There is an onus on the Government to provide back-up finances to enable this to be accelerated as this would have a substantial impact on jobs.

The recent EU White Paper on Competitiveness and Employment brought home to us the impact the information society will have in future and the policies necessary to harness new technologies. Genetic engineering, biotechnology, new products and processes open up opportunities to create more dynamics in the industry and technology areas than in the past, particularly with the quality of graduates leaving our colleges and universities. We are moving into a new era of economic activity based on high technology and information technology. We need to set down specific standards and guidelines and to enforce and monitor them.

Section 11 deals with staffing. What is the budget for this new authority? When establishing a new authority it is important to ensure it is given the necessary finances to deal with problems. I note the Minister for Finance will keep strict control over the budget and the number of staff. Will the Minister indicate the number of staff involved and what the budget is likely to be? As regards the grants which will be paid under the legislation, will the Minister of State indicate whether additional funding will be provided or will the budgets disbursed through the IDA and those provided under other legislation be reclassified and paid out under this legislation? Will he indicate what additional resources will be provided to enable the new Authority to carry out its work?

Will he clarify that it is proposed to update registers that are covered under existing legislation in so far as that is necessary? Sections 24 and 25 deal with that. Sections 25 and 26 are confusing and I ask him to explain what is involved and how the provisions in those sections differ from those in existing legislation.

Under section 28 the Minister has power to make regulations. I am not certain how the line of communication between Forfás and the new Authority will be maintained. I presume they will work closely together, but it is not clear what the new arrangement will be and how it will work in practice. The final sections deal with the financial implications involved and neither the Minister's speech nor the legislation indicate what resources will be provided to cover them.

Some people working in this area are employed in the Glasnevin complex. When deciding the location of the headquarters of the new agency I strongly urge the Minister of State to consider decentralising it from Dublin. A number of years ago decisions were made to establish new agencies or authorities outside Dublin because of the major increase in employment in the Dublin area and the necessity to decentralise. I strongly recommend that he consider setting it up in Shannon where a laboratory is in place in the premises of the former Industrial Research and Standards Authority where valuable work was done. Will the Minister of State indicate the position regarding the transfer of laboratories and the volume of facilities that will be transferred to the new authority?

This is excellent legislation. The Minister of State has put his stamp on it, unlike the last Bill he introduced. I am satisfied the Authority will carry out the work for which he has given it responsibility.

I object to some matters which I will raise on Committee Stage. I do not see why it is necessary to debar members of local authorities from membership of the board. I do not disagree with Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas being debarred from it. but I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the subsection that debars members of local authorities. I welcome the legislation and we will support it fully.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and his introduction of this legislation. It is interesting to recall that in 1993 when Forfás, Forbairt and the IDA were set up I was sitting on the opposite side of the House and we were informed that this development might take place and that it would come on stream within a reasonable period. We spoke at length about the excellent work being done by a large number of companies which were being approved for the ISO 9000 certification. The numbers are growing substantially and rapidly — there are 1,300 and that will shortly increase to 2,000. The standards being achieved by these companies show that those involved in small, medium and large businesses want to be confident when promoting their products on world markets that they are producing goods of the highest quality. That certification has given people initiative. Some people ranging from management to the junior on the shop floor in small companies have gone out of their way and worked extremely hard to achieve that certificate, which proves that those companies are producing goods of a standard comparable with the best in Europe.

It is worth while and interesting that we are changing and updating a 1961 Act. It takes a long time for things to change and we are taking a positive step. The NSAI should be separate and should operate from its own buildings. I do not agree with Senator Daly that the authority should be established in Shannon for the sake of being established there. At every opportunity companies have located in Shannon to avail of tax concessions, etc. when other counties would have welcomed such investment. I am not 100 per cent sure whether it is intended to relocate the authority outside Glasnevin. I was in the Glasnevin complex recently and the size of the operation and the numbers employed are astonishing. A good deal of excellent work is being done and great help is being given to companies around the country.

I question the need for the number of committees that will be involved. I accept a large range of topics across the spectrum of industry is being covered and it may be necessary to have those committees. If that is the case, will the Minister of State outline the range of work that will be covered by them? Will he indicate the number of staff that will be seconded to the Authority? It is interesting that last week we were also passing legislation seconding staff from one organisation to another. That happened because of the changes taking place and EU directives to which they have given rise which provide that we must identify different bodies on their merits. Is it intended that the budget to cover the seconded staff will come out of the IDA, Forfás or Forbairt budgets? It appears that will be the case. Is it intended that the Authority will charge for some of its work or will the State pay for the Authority's work in approving company standards?

Having regard to the package involved and the introduction of legislation which provides that some elected members are not eligible for appointment to boards, I question why we should go down that road. We discussed that matter four months ago when debating other legislation under which local authority members are not eligible for board membership. I do not have a fixed view on whether they should be eligible for appointment, but a number of those members have done fine work on particular boards to which they were appointed. I recommend that they take that work equally seriously.

I hope Senators will co-operate in approving this Bill, which provides for the establishment of an independent agency to aid industries already satisfied with events over the past few years. Some three years have elapsed since this Bill was promised, another example of the slowly grinding wheels in drafting legislation.

This Bill rescinds previous legislation passed since I became a Senator.

Senator Daly referred to the name of the new institute. It is important that its name is pronounceable. The "State Institute for National Standards"— which, when abbreviated, would emerges as "SINS"— is probably not suitable. I congratulate the Minister on devising the name National Accreditation Board — NAB — which also sounds quite good but, even if we adhere to the NSAI, this Bill constitutes the second major revision of the Act amalgamating the old Industrial Development Authority and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, another unpronounceable abbreviated title. Last year we passed a Bill restoring a number of powers to Forbairt and IDA Ireland, particularly that to hold property which, in the original legislation, had been vested in Forfás only when, if one listened very intently, in the background one could hear the sounds of empires quietly being rebuilt. Now, with this Mark II, the National Standards Authority of Ireland is being respun as a separate body. It is not an exaggeration to say that what I might describe as the original multimerger is beginning to fall apart. However, I do not necessarily see that as a bad thing. There is no doubt that this new Authority should be a separate body or agency and clearly seen as independent of other State agencies that may have a particular axe to grind. From that point of view, I congratulate the Minister on its introduction.

This contingency could and should have been foreseen when Forfás and its subsidiary agencies, were established but, in the unholy rush to amalgamate everything into one super agency, this blindingly obvious point was overlooked. The omission is now being rectified.

In the spirit of this Bill, I make two suggestions on how the original super agency might be refined even further. My first concerns the place of science: note, I did not say "science and technology" because there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the two which has often been blurred in the past to the detriment of science. It is appropriate that responsibility for technology lies with Forbairt, as part of its remit is clearly to encourage the greatest possible interplay between industrial development and technology. Irish-owned industry has always been under-strength from the point of view of technology, which is demonstrated by our very poor level of investment in research and development.

There is more to science than that. There is need for basic, pure scientific research in addition to the type of applied research with direct application to industrial development. One must have both. Pure research is like the duck's legs beneath the water and applied research is like its feathers above water. The point is that one cannot buy the top part of the duck only, without which it has no driving power.

As matters stand, Forbairt is responsible for promoting our national science effort. It is not a job appropriate to that agency or one in which it excels and I do not believe it is a task the agency itself particularly wants. In the next revision of the great Forfás empire, the Minister should define a separate niche for science, remaining within the Forfás umbrella but definitely outside the aegis of Forbairt.

The second revision is one I suggested at the time of the amalgamation of those agencies, as obvious as the need that gave rise to this Bill, but in the heat of the moment, it was again ignored; the absence of An Bord Tráchtála from the overall Forfás family. To have the trade board separate from Forfás but reporting to a separate Minister flies in the face of common sense. This has resulted in companies dealing with Forbairt on the one hand and An Bord Tráchtála on the other, both agencies singing from different hymn books, if not simultaneously in different churches.

It is a great pity that on the formation of the Government approximately 18 months ago, the opportunity was not taken to abolish the quite ridiculous Department of Trade and Tourism. Trade should be part of industrial development — there is no logic in any other arrangement — as tourism is more than sufficiently important to the future development of our economy to warrant a separate Government Department.

While some of those points have been made before, I was anxious to stitch them into this debate. Clearly this Bill is worthy of support. There is a Japanese term "Kaizen” which means “continuous improvement”. I welcome this Bill as evidence that the Government is ready to consider continuously revising the structure of existing State agencies that support industry. I hope this process of continuous improvement will be maintained along the lines I outlined.

I have no doubt that this Bill will be passed without any difficulty because I do not perceive any great defect in it.

Far be it from me to be the exception in not welcoming this Bill. Senators Daly and Quinn, without casting any reflection on my friend and colleague, Senator Farrelly, articulated many of my sentiments on the various provisions of this welcome Bill.

In 1985 a first attempt was made to harmonise standards within the European Community, as it was then. Why had we to await an EU directive before introducing this Bill? As Senator Quinn correctly pointed out, it is astonishing that, within the period of his membership of this House, and the lifetime of this Seanad, two Bills were introduced, the provisions of which will have considerable impact on industrial development and promotion generally.

When one examines in detail the former role of Forfás, its present and future one on the passage of this Bill, I am forced to inquire of the Minister, what its raison d'être is because it certainly appears to me to be a case of empire building. I cannot see what function it should continue to have when its chief executive, in his statement in its 1994 Annual Report said:

Forfás is the body in which the State's legal powers for industrial promotion and technology development have been vested under the 1993 Industrial Development Act...

It is also the body through which powers are delegated for the promotion of indigenous industry and to IDA-Ireland for the promotion of inward investment as agents of Forfás.

Yet when one examines the activities of Forfás in greater detail one finds, from its most recently available report in 1994, that it works closely with the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Forbairt and IDA-Ireland to bring new organisational structures into effective operation.

The Strategic Management Initiative is already in place, a root and branch radical reform to improve Government efficiency. On my reading of it, Forfás is involved in that with a Government Department. They then go on to say — and this is the nub of my argument — that at present Forfás retains direct responsibility for a number of executive functions including the industrial land and property portfolio.

We legislated to remove that from the remit of Forfás. We are about to legislate to remove the National Standards Authority of Ireland from the ambit of Forfás. We are now left with the third part of the trinity — legal responsibility for the portfolio of State equity investments and the client firms of both Forbairt and IDA Ireland. The report goes on to say these functions are currently under review.

Perhaps the Minister might tell us what is the point of having a continuance of Forfás. There was some disquiet when the original three Bills were introduced this House. I am fully aware it was a Fianna Fáil-led Government that initiated the legislation, but that does not make it any more correct. Members of my party decry all of the State agencies in existence, conveniently forgetting that we were probably responsible for setting up most of them. This is a bugbear of mine in the context of county enterprise boards, Leader programmes, etc. We are dealing with specific legislation, and perhaps the Minister can, quite correctly and technically, refrain from going down the road I have suggested. There is, perhaps, a need to reflect a little on what the continuing use of Forfás is now that its assets are being stripped. On Senator Quinn's comment about empire building, this is empire building at its greatest, unless there is some other role for Forfás of which I am not aware.

In the context of the Bill, I have perceived for many years, particularly in relation to electrical goods, perhaps even manufactured in Ireland but certainly manufactured by companies with Irish manufacturing bases, tabs denoting that they conform to British standards specifications. Now we are setting up this new body, will the Irish standards logo be legally obligatory on all such labelling for domestic and industrial products? If so, it would strike yet another blow for our sovereignty in the world markets. In the context of monitoring this obligation, would there be any way of preventing goods circulating in this country from being labelled with marks from other countries? Is the whole purpose of the legislation to harmonise all of the various marks across Europe, or must any goods circulating in this country specifically and exclusively have an Irish specification mark on it? It is a rather technical area and I may be going down a different avenue to what the Minister suggested in his opening remarks on Second Stage. It is just that I do not see why we should buy products here, especially if they are being made here even under licence by a subsidiary of an overseas company, that retain on their commercial labelling a standard specification mark other than one originating in this country.

Senator Daly referred to staffing arrangements. In association with him, I would ask the Minister to pursue that line of debate. The Bill specifically states that all staff currently involved in the area of specifications and marks will be transferred. How many will be transferred, what percentage of the existing Forfás staff the transfer will affect and how many will be left, apart from the board and the chief executive who seem to have nothing to do other than their legal obligation to oversee the equity investments of their two subsidiaries, IDA and Forbairt?

Does the Minister envisage the new legislation resulting in an expansion of the existing workforce which is allowed under this Bill, and which would be another charge on the Exchequer? I am not talking about the administrative structures but the practical structures on the shop floor. Will one of the first acts of this new authority be to start employing more staff? I am not against that in principle, but legislation such as this seems to result in job creation not just in the context of the appointment of board members but across a wide area. We then find we have to change it, as we discussed earlier.

I referred earlier to harmonisation in the labelling of electrical goods. Will this legislation also deal with the lack of harmonisation currently in the European Union in relation to, for example, electric plugs — on the Continent the plugs are round whereas ours are square. I understand one of the reasons we have not followed the European model is that we are so exposed to the British market. If my memory serves me right, the reason the British did not change was because of strong lobbying from electrical goods manufacturers in the UK who would have had to face very high financial losses had they been obliged to change. There may also have been a question of compensation. It seems ridiculous that we have to bring an electric plug with us whenever we go to visit the rest of the European Union when we are supposed to be Europeans.

Does the Minister envisage this body being in the forefront of attempts currently under way to harmonise a wide range of areas on the domestic front? I have in mind specifically television and the current debate about widescreen technology, about European and Japanese standards and whether the authority will be charged with furthering this process of harmonisation.

As to the cost of implementation, I realise I am barking up the wrong tree and that this legislation will cost money because of the setting up of the authority, the board and the whole structure. However, what sometimes irritates me as a member of a local authority, is that the Government, the Executive, is responding to a European directive which they are legally obliged to implement, by proceeding with this legislation and including an appropriate amount of money in the Appropriations so that the taxpayer will take up the tab. However, whenever legislation is passed here as a result of an EU directive which requires local authorities to implement that directive the local authorities have to pick up the tab.

One example that springs to mind relates to the Abattoirs Act where it became incumbent on each local authority to employ veterinary inspectors. They could not seek resources from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to pay the extra staff everybody knew would be needed to implement the EU directive on abattoirs and, despite several motions from local authorities, including my own in Leitrim, the motions were kicked back from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to the local authorities telling them (a) they must implement this directive, (b) they must employ staff and (c) they must fund it out of their own resources.

Funding is not a problem in this Government legislation. Double standards appear to be in operation — excuse the pun — which is very unfair. I am not suggesting the Minister has got the answers today, but I make the point that with the increasing responsibility on local authorities to implement European directives, there is no recognition of the resulting financial difficulty facing them, yet they have to fund it out of their limited resources.

I too draw the Minister's attention to the First Schedule. First Schedule 2(2), states the board of the Authority shall consist of not more than 13 members. I would have liked to see provision in the legislation for gender balance. I have become a convert to the need for gender balance provisions in legislation, particularly after a meeting with our parliamentary colleagues from the Norwegian foreign affairs committee who are to the forefront in innovative legislation. Legislative provisions on gender balance have had such an effect across the whole of Norwegian society that one Norwegian cited the example of the son of his colleague who is only six years of age asking, "Can a boy become prime minister of Norway?". I am not sure we will ever reach that situation but the point is well made. I would like to have seen provision that the board shall consist of not more than 13 members, of which a certain number shall be women.

Senator Daly spoke on the reference in the Second Schedule to local authority members. There seems to be a notice stuck on a board in the parliamentary draftsman's office stating that when drafting legislation creating new boards they should make sure to include a section under the First Schedule stating that the local authority members are not to be included. I do not understand the logic of it — it is treating elected members of local authorities with contempt. I cannot figure out the genesis of this idea. Some individual in the "permanent Government"— as John Healy referred to our friends in the Civil Service — came up with it. I am not sure that a Minister decided this was to be the norm. It is in every Bill coming before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Like lemmings going over a cliff, what happens? We vote it through on the nod and we do not even have a debate on it. Could somebody explain to me why the First Schedule section 2 (11) states: "Board members shall not be members of a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1941." We will have a situation from 1998 onwards that a Member of the Dáil or Seanad will not be eligible to become chairperson of a local authority. Nobody will challenge this legislative provision, but I believe it is unconstitutional that having been elected to a body one is precluded because of membership of another body from being chairman of that body.

Area partnership boards, comprising representatives from State agencies and voluntary bodies, have been set up all over this country in the past six months. They are doing very valuable work. The legislation setting up these boards specifically precludes members of local authorities from being members of area partnership boards, although county councillors are elected by the people to serve the area. No wonder the general public is treating politics and politicians with contempt. No wonder politicians, including Government Ministers, are sidelined. No wonder we are seeing the effects of this river of cynicism that has infiltrated this country in the past few years and is now building up to a flood. If we have not respect for our institutions, how do we expect the general public to have it? I have made this speech several times but I am repeating myself in the hope that somebody might end this nonsense. Senator Daly and I will table an amendment to have this section deleted.

I very much welcome this Bill. It is essential to have an autonomous authority setting standards in this country. Until the Minster spoke, an aspect of the Bill about which I was very concerned was board membership. From the drift of the Bill and on reading the section regarding the board I formed the impression that the consumer was not being considered very often. I wish Senator Quinn were here to support my assertion that most trade is consumer driven. Whatever standards we set, it is absolutely vital that they are what the consumer wants. If the consumer considers that the standards we have set are not sufficient, it is pointless having them. I thought we would have learned that from the very costly mistake of the beef crisis. When An Bord Bia was set up Senator Quinn and I urged that consumers should be represented on the board, but they were not. However, amending legislation was recently introduced to have a consumer representative on the board. This is essential. The Minister of State indicated in his speech that consumers will be represented on this board. I support Senator Mooney's proposals on achieving a gender balance whereby 40 per cent female representation would be maintained. An enormous number of consumers are women; women do the shopping. As Senator Mooney suggested, it is probably the women who will consider the dangers inherent in sockets and whether children will try to put their fingers or objects into the holes. I am glad the Minister confirmed that consumers will be represented on the board and I hope that there will be a high number of consumer representatives.

Sometimes we act as if industry will solve our problems, that if we give it its head, it will set the standard which will be all right. It is important to remember that financial reward is very important to industry and they may set a standard that the consumer does not want.

I do not think the Consumer Association of Ireland has been consulted in the drafting of the Bill. This worthwhile body deserves a great deal of support. Since it was established the Consumer Association of Ireland has received £3,000 in Government funding, which is very little. It is supported entirely on voluntary funding, yet it publishes a very good magazine, Consumer Choice. Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland are the only countries in the European Union that do not give financial support to consumer associations. It is not that I want every voluntary organisation supported. The Consumer Association of Ireland is an independent group. Bodies such as the trade unions get money for education and so on. IBEC, the industry body, is funded by its members but they can offset their contribution against tax. The Consumer Association of Ireland is a voluntary body, funded from the after tax income of consumers. The Consumer Association has joined ANEC, the European association of consumer associations. We are involved in SEN, which is very important. SEN sets the European standards. We have to be careful that we do not take a blanket look at European standards and decide they are all right. To date we have judged ourselves against the British standards. Industrial nations very often drive legislation and standards to suit an industry in their jurisdiction. Now that we are in SEN we should try to take a leading role in setting standards.

I will give an example which was brought to my attention recently regarding riding helmets. The Minister will probably be aware of problems in the racing industry regarding standards for riding helmets. Those in the horse industry have expressed concern regarding standards for helmets which appeared to be acceptable. For example, I always thought the British standards were perfectly acceptable until I was told about a serious accident where standards obviously were not good enough. The parents, who were very careful, ensured their child was wearing what they considered the best helmet. The child was out riding and fell, the horse also fell and rolled on the child thus killing the child. When the helmet was examined it was discovered it had no lateral stressing, although it had a safety standard on it, and no protection for the temples. They tried to raise this matter with the National Standards Authority here but it had no interest or competence to deal with such a matter. We should look specifically at consumer areas such as horse riding, which we promote for tourism purposes, to ensure that we as well as all other countries examine what standards will provide safety, not just standards, in some of our more important European neighbours and decide that their standards are acceptable. Very often their standards are not acceptable.

I wish the Authority well and hope it takes its work seriously because we could make an important contribution from the point of view of being consumers in respect of the standarisation required to be set up for products, services and so on, not only in this State but in Europe.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the legislation and I have no difficulty with it. There are a few aspects on which I would like to comment and make a few points. It is important — and the Minister made the point in his introduction to the Bill — that the body is independent and autonomous. That is critical. I note some of the points made in respect of Forfás, Forbairt and so on. It is important from the point of view of consumer confidence that a body which is responsible for setting standards and standardisation should have that degree of autonomy. That is required under EN 45000 to conform to international requirements.

It is unfortunate that Ireland does not have something as readily identifiable as the British kitemark so that when consumers take a product from the shelf they know instantly from the accreditation mark it conforms to certain standards and that, therefore, they have a certain confidence in it. In the past the British kitemark helped to achieve that degree of consumer confidence. Certain sections of the Bill deal with what companies may or may not do, in terms of initiatives and so on. It is important that the consumer should know the standard is verifiable and that there is something on the product which allows him to have that degree of confidence. This is related in a curious way to the BSE issue — although we cannot put a kitemark on a pound of steak — in terms of food. Commodities come within the ambit of the Bill.

Senator Quinn made a point, with which I agree, about the sound in the background of empire building. When we debated the Forfás-Forbairt legislation I was critical of creating more agencies and layer upon layer of agencies to the extent that everybody becomes totally confused about what agency is responsible for what. Having said that I accept there is need for this body. Senator Quinn had some difficulties about the acronym which might be used in respect of the body. It struck me immediately it could be called NASI — the National Authority for Standards in Ireland but as that could lead to confusion it is better to leave it at the more cumbersome way designated in the Bill.

It is important to have standardisation to facilitate trade because, unquestionably, countries have used technical impediments to prevent trade between countries. They have been used as devices for protection, particularly by some of our European partners — the French spring readily to mind. All countries bear some culpability that they have, over time, used these technical impediments to trade to protect their own markets. Under the World Trade Agreement that will become much more difficult. It is important when we go to Germany, Italy or France and plug in our electrical appliances that they will work and that it will be same throughout the Community.

I now want to say something contradictory. I do not know if I bored the Minister before about the European free range hen but even if I have I am prepared to do so again. I visited a farm in County Cork a few years ago which, under the Leader programme, introduced a free range hen enterprise and packed eggs for neighbouring farmers and did a good job. The hens were out on grass on a field which had a shed. Originally the farmer had the hens in his shed in the yard as was traditional on all Irish farms. He was told this could not be considered a free range hen. The hen that went to the field and returned to the farmyard could not be considered a free range hen. This was because some bureaucrat in Brussels had decreed that any hen that walked across concrete from the field to the shed could not be regarded as a free range hen. I make this point to demonstrate the lunacy — I use that word advisedly — which is at work in Brussels on occasion. The banana has been used most often to demonstrate this degree of interference and regulation which is unhealthy for enterprise.

The Leader programme has been very successful in developing rural enterprise and small businesses. The county enterprise partnership board is another example. There are people with a huge degree of initiative and energy who will go to enormous lengths to create businesses which most people regard as not being viable. In Easky, County Sligo, I saw dillisk — seaweed — being processed, dried and sold in shops. This was a successful enterprise which had grown out of a traditional activity of harvesting seaweed on the beach. It is depressing for those people to find when they get a business to a certain point of development that the Brussels bureaucracy intervenes and that what was a good idea and had financial and other supports was nipped in the bud because of the nonsensical approach to the activities in which they were engaged. I realise I am straying from the content of the Bill but it is a closely related issue. We must ensure we do not impose so much regulation on small businesses that they cannot flourish, grow and develop. I sometimes think that some of the regulations at European level are introduced at the behest of very large multinational corporations who are there to protect their own interest and ensure that the private individual, to whom I referred, did not get off the ground.

The man with the eggs goes into his local supermarket as he has traditionally done over the years and is told he must have a "packed" licence to sell his eggs there. I accept there are health dimensions to all this, such as salmonella and so on. However, we must adopt a liberal approach that fosters local initiative and does not impose insurmountable technical difficulties. Standards are not the same as standardisation. Standardisation across the board in electrical products does not necessarily imply that the standard of a particular product is adequate.

Consumer confidence is a key factor in this area. Companies with ISO 9000 accreditation are regarded as adhering to high standards and the public has confidence in them. There is a dramatic absence of ISO 9000 accreditation in the State sector. It is about time Government Departments, county councils and so on did whatever is necessary to attain that accreditation. Products must be safe. There have been some major accidents with toys, although I accept they were imported from the Far East and not the European Union.

If the Bord na Móna experience is anything to go by, we will find it difficult to get people to serve on State boards. People will wonder why they should have to drive around the country, work for a modest amount of money and be subject to a great deal of criticism. Fortunately, some people are prepared to take on the mantle of public servants and serve on State boards and, despite the present difficulties, I hope that continues.

This would be a better Bill if it included a provision to allow consumer interest representation on the board. My party tabled an amendment to the An Bord Bia Bill, 1994 specifically to include consumer interests on the board. I proposed that a person from a recognised consumer organisation should nominate people to the Minister who could then decide who to appoint. Consumer interests should be designated as part of the NSAI board.

I agree with Members' comments about county councillors. From my experience members of county councils have particular competencies and merit consideration for membership of the board. This would not give rise to a conflict of interest. They would not have a close sectoral interest, which others might bring to bear on the board and should not, by definition, be excluded from the board.

The Minister said consumer interests could be included on the board, but that is not what I am arguing. There should be a representative of consumer interests, by definition, on the board. I welcome the legislation and we will not impede its passage through the House.

I thank Members who managed to make the debate on the Bill interesting, something we did not manage to do in the other House. Some interesting questions were raised.

Senators Daly, Mooney, Dardis and Farrelly referred to the exclusion of local authority members from the board. I agree with their comments, but it is not something that was prominently in my mind in regard to this Bill. The board to which we refer was appointed by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, and I extended its life, pending this legislation. This is a specialist area, but that does not mean I do not accept the argument about a consumer dimension. I agree in general with the arguments for the inclusion of local authority members on the board. It is wrong to exclude them.

The House accepted the necessity in this case for an autonomous independent body. There are very specific reasons, including a legal imperative, why this body must be separate from the agencies, which have a different remit. If I had not plugged in my electrical appliance at 5.30 a.m. this morning in Brussels I might have followed more vigorously some of the arguments raised. Interesting questions were raised about the legislation that set up IDA Ireland, Forbairt and Forfás. The arguments for setting up three agencies to do the job of the former IDA would not count in this case because of the legal imperative to protect the quality of our accreditation. The division of the agencies is a complex matter. Most people would agree it was necessary to set up a specific agency to focus on the building of the indigenous sector, which was the poor relation in the IDA which did a good job in the foreign sector.

Senator Mooney raised questions about the rationale behind the setting up of Forfás. There is room for argument in this regard. Forfás is the think tank, the intellectual sinews of industrial policy. It is questionable whether it should be reposed in the Department or set up as a separate agency. When I was in Opposition I argued that it should be reposed in the Department, but I now see merit in having it removed from the Department, even if only at a small step. The recent document it produced is worthy of study.

A number of Senators raised the point about the 14 committees and asked whether a fee income is raised by the NSAI. The fee income totals almost 70 per cent. The NSAI has a growing reputation in terms of its ability to earn revenue. Senators asked whether the number of staff will increase, whether there will be additional expenditure and so on, but it is important to make the point that the NSAI is a revenue earner in its own right, to the extent of no less than 70 per cent, which is very significant. It has an international reputation. I do not know why there are 14 committees as distinct from 13 or 15, but they seem to be as different as chalk and cheese — for example, the electro-technical safety committee and committees on construction products, consumer consultation, pharmaceutical and medical devices, information technology and environment. All the committees are vastly different and deal with specialist areas. I think the House will accept the need for specialists in these circumstances.

I wish to refer to the tragic case brought to our attention by Senator Henry relating to the riding helmets standard. The NSAI put the parents of the child who tragically died in the riding accident, to which the Senator referred in touch with the relevant experts in the USA. They are working together to draft technical specifications to guarantee lateral stiffness and protection. The NSAI will propose an amendment to the European standard when available, but unfortunately no such specifications are yet available.

Senator Mooney referred to the Euro plug. The NSAI, in consultation with 18 other members of the European standardisation body for electronics and electrical products are working towards the introduction of a European wide Euro plug which will replace the seven different designs of plug used throughout Europe.

I am delighted to hear that.

Senator Quinn could hear in the background the sound of empires being rebuilt. That is a little unfair in this case because the motivation behind the construction of this agency as an independent and autonomous body has nothing to do with empires. There is a legal imperative behind it. There is a pressing requirement to protect our quality marks. The staffing complement is in the order of 110 in total. Senators will be surprised to learn that half of them are contract staff, whose position will improve when this legislation is passed. There are no immediate plans for significant change in that regard.

I do not agree with Senator Quinn about the separation of science and technology. It is more difficult now than ever before to draw distinction between science and technology. The difference between pure or basic research and applied research is becoming more blurred, and as the information society develops that is likely to be the trend. I hope to bring a White Paper to Government within the next few weeks on science and technology policy, and many of the questions raised by Senator Quinn and Senator Daly will be dealt with in that paper. I would be delighted if the public engaged in debate on that matter, which does not set the world on fire — I agree with Senators who said that that is regrettable in a modern society. I have proffered the view elsewhere that if one could enliven such a debate with the same enthusiasm as on arts and culture perhaps greater progress would be made, but I recognised immediately that that was an argument in favour of the Minister, Deputy Higgins, to replace me in this job, although there may be merit in that.

Senator Quinn asked why the trade board is a separate body which reports to a separate Minister. Everybody knows the reason for that, and perhaps the position should have been changed by this Government, but that is a debate for another day. It would not be acceptable to chop and change agencies every time there was a change of Government. We have a fantastic fascination with agencies — for example, if something goes wrong somebody has a great idea for a new agency or suggests that certain agencies should not have been divided and should be amalgamated again. In my brief experience, the business of putting departments together again is not necessarily always the wisest solution.

Senator Daly requested that the new agency be decentralised to Shannon. I have not dwelt very much on that question. There is a possibility of decentralising it to the third major city in the Republic, Tallaght, to which I could give consideration.

If the Minister makes such a proposal I will not oppose it.

It ought to be recognised that the consultative committees comprise specialist people who are not paid for that work, nor, extraordinarily, are they paid travelling expenses. As Senator Dardis said, they do a public service job and our appreciation is due to them for that.

Senator Dardis raised the interesting question of whether we are over regulated and he instanced the daft extremes to which the European bureaucracy goes in that regard. He made the interesting point that very often it is the lobby system that produces that effect. It can be very important for the giant trans-national corporations to have things done that seem daft to us. For example, in the area of intellectual property it is a very valuable instrument for very large companies to have certain agreements given effect to at the level of the European Union and between the European Union and the other major trading blocks. Very often there is not a rationale from the point of view of the consumer, but there is from the point of view of the large multinationals who have a monopoly in that area.

I will not dispute the point made about the prevalence of the ISO 9,000 standard throughout the public service. There has been a fantastic awakening about quality in recent years and the extent to which the ISO 9,000 has been adopted is very encouraging. It is a boost to consumer confidence in the quality of the organisations involved and I agree with Senator Dardis' comments in that regard. The matter was raised as a minor point by Senator Daly, and other Senators have taken up the point that the name is complicated and not easily recognised and does not trip lightly off the tongue. Since the ISO 9000 mark has become so prevalent the NSAI logo is beginning to get wider circulation and appreciation. It has an international as well as a national reputation. Some of the people concerned are very highly regarded for their professionalism. I do not wish to pre-empt the House but I think we are stuck with that one now and so be it. I will have regard to the arguments made.

The Minister of State should think about that again.

I will have regard to the arguments made on the consumer issue and in regard to representation there. I take the point of the particular reference Senator Dardis made in respect of An Bord Bia. This Government brought in amending legislation, although perhaps it was somewhat delayed. The legislation emerged from the co-operation between the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Food, Deputy Yates and me during the recent BSE scare and I was very pleased that he was able to accede to the request I made for representation on An Bord Bia of the consumer organisations. It might be a bit late but it is a valuable acknowledgment that without consumer confidence, the quality of the product really does not matter. Consumers will vote with their feet if they do not believe in the quality of the product. It is important for the restoration of consumer confidence that they be represented. I thank all Members who contributed.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

I gather there are a number of amendments from the Opposition.

There are just two amendments.

The Opposition is multi-faceted. I think there is a third amendment. Perhaps the Minister would like an opportunity to look at them. Could we have a sos of five minutes so the Minister can examine the amendments?

Committee Stage ordered for 7.50 p.m. today.
Sitting suspended at 7.45 p.m. and resumed at 7.50 p.m.
Top
Share