Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy O'Keeffe is out of order.
SECTION 2.
Why is it out of order?
It involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
In any event we are meeting the point of Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment and will do better than required.
I tabled the amendment to place an outside limit on the date which would always be at the discretion of the Minister. I wanted to tie down the date; that is why I wondered why it was out of order.
The Minister has indicated that he will be referring to that under another heading.
It will be considerably better than the Deputy's amendment envisaged.
Will the Deputy take the Minister's word on that? I cannot deal with the issue now; I have to take amendments in sequence.
I will have to take the Minister's word.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 2, 9 and 10 form a composite proposal and will be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, lines 29 to 31, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) Section 35 of the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Act, 1987, is hereby repealed.".
It is proposed to delete subsection (2) of section 4 on the grounds that the section as it stands will deny Forbairt the right to publish scientific and technical information. As this is one of its fundamental functions, it would be incorrect to deny Forbairt that right. The NSAI will be able, explicitly and implicitly, to publish facts and information concerning standards and standardisation matters under section 7(1)(e) and 7(1)(h) of the Bill.
It is further proposed to include a new subsection (2) in section 4 to repeal section 35 of the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Act, 1987, which was drafted after the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs was established. The Director assumed responsibility for policing orders made under section 44 of the Industrial Research and Standards Act, 1961. The Minister is empowered to make such orders for the safety of the public by requiring that potentially unsafe products meet standards or other safety specifications so that the public will be protected. The Director has brought to my attention that, like the 1961 Act, no power has been given to him to prosecute offences committed under the regulations provided for in section 28 of this Bill. Amendment No. 9 rectifies that omission.
In addition, it is my intention to ensure that the Minister shall have power to make regulations so that bodies other than the Minister or Director can prosecute offences under the Bill. I believe that the NSAI, the National Accreditation Board or, in certain exceptional circumstances, some other body might require power to prosecute offences. I have provided for this in section 32. However, by bringing the Director in line by means of amendment No. 9, it is necessary to insert the word "other" after "such", in line 21 on page 14. This is proposed in amendment No. 10.
Will the new authority have the right to publish scientific and technical information?
Yes.
Why was this prohibited by the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Act?
The point I made referred to the repeal of section 35 of that Act.
Yes, I am aware of that. As a matter of general information, why was such publication prohibited by the Act?
I presume it was because the legislation was drafted after the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs was established.
Is that the reason?
It is, as I understand it.
Is it proposed to repeal any other provisions of the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Act?
Not under this amendment. Amendment No. 10 is consequential on amendment No. 9.
I welcome the amendment. There is no reason that the authority might not be permitted to publish scientific and technical information. This is very sensible. Any body involved with standards should have that facility.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.