Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Jun 1996

SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, lines 1 and 2, to delete "in relation to standardisation, harmonisation, certification or inspection," and substitute "set out in section 6(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the Act of 1961 which were".

It has been brought to my attention that section 8 of the Bill as drafted could impinge on certain testing and certification work which Forbairt undertakes at present, such as in their metrology, electronic and environmental laboratories and test houses. It was never the intention to curtail these activities and this amendment will ensure that only those activities relating to standardisation and certification proper to the NSAI have been detailed. This will ensure that Forbairt will still be able, under those functions particularly specified in section 6(2)(g) and (h) of the 1961 Act, to test or analyse products and publish the results of these tests or analyses.

By taking away from Forfás the power to formulate standards I have also ensured that the remote possibility of a second national standards body being set up as a committee of that body will not occur.

The retention of the right to test, analyse and certify products by Forbairt does not give them the authority to issue certificates for which accreditation or its equivalent is required. While the testing and analysis may still be carried out by Forbairt, the certification will of necessity be carried out by an accredited body, such as NSAI. The national accreditation board is processing a number of applications for accreditation at present. In this way I will ensure there will be no need for any of those sections of Forbairt, such as metrology, electronics or environment, to set up autonomous bodies for accreditation purposes in the future.

Deputy O'Rourke seeks the deletion of relevant references in section 8 of the Bill and, for reasons already stated, I am not able to accept that amendment. The intention which the Deputy seeks to achieve will be equally achieved by amendment No. 8.

However well meaning the Minister of State's explanation, I do not accept this rather technical amendment will have the effect he outlined. Fianna Fáil oppose the section because it will have major consequences for Forbairt. It represents an attack on the functions of their technology services. This technical and narrow amendment will not guarantee what we want.

I would be grateful if the Minister would expand on what he meant by inspection work. Certification work can no longer be done by Forbairt. The Minister referred to a number of aspects of Forbairt's work. There is no consistency between the agencies — IDA Ireland, Forfás and Forbairt — on the issue of the separation of certification and the accreditation agencies. Forbairt recently endorsed the Timber Quality Bureau of Ireland as a separate legal entity but remaining within Forbairt.

I thank the Minister of States officials for the briefing material we have received. It makes much of the fact that we are compelled by the EU to have separate accreditation. However, my inquiries indicate this is not so. I am sure all members have received information from the Standing Committee on Construction about the European Accreditation Committee, the group which is apparently compelling us to set up a body as proposed by the Bill. It is indicated that the Commission was asked to give details on the assessment of the tasks of EAC, because it relates to the Commission's agreement. The letter enclosed various correspondence, including some from Commissioner Martin Bangemann, according to which "no activity of EAC in the field of CPD, which is the responsibility of the member states, will be accepted."

In other words, far from Europe demanding such accreditation processes and that we introduce this legislation, the reverse is the situation. We often say that Europe demands and we follow as if we blindly accept everything Europe demands. In this case we do not have to do that. I do not see why the Minister of State should accede to a spurious demand which does not stand up to scrutiny.

I compliment Deputy O'Rourke on using every section of the Bill to argue the same point. I do not know how many times I can return to it. To put it the other way around for the sake of argument; if the file in my office in 18 months or in six or seven years is inherited by Deputy O'Rourke, she will find that the professional, administrative and legal advice is that this course of action is necessary. I have no difficulty about taking a different view from the official one but if I did not follow the professional and legal advice available to me, the decision would be open to question. I am satisfied that according to the expert advice available to me this course of action is necessary.

We can continue to debate this all evening but I assure Deputy O'Rourke that if I thought this was no more than an exercise in self-aggrandisement and empire building I would not have proceeded with the Bill.

It would be a fundamentally serious matter if the accreditation or standardisation process was impeachable or open to challenge. One thousand companies have been registered to ISO 9000 and by the end of 1997 it is estimated it will be 2,000. Our advice is that we must proceed this way and that is the only reason I am doing so.

How does the Minister assess or comment on the letter I received from Germany bearing Commissioner Bangemann's views on the authenticity of the drive from Europe towards this type of body? It questions that quite clearly as well as questioning the rationale — not particularly about the Minister's Bill — of domestic need to conform in such matters. Could it not be, as is the way in public life and in public service — through good motives I am sure — that when a potential Bill becomes a gleam in the eye of departmental public servants, it must then become a reality? A Bill must be produced because somebody decided earlier that there was a need for it.

I suggest that we might pass over that document or pass it to the Minister for consideration under some other heading. Is the amendment in the name of the Minister agreed to?

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I am opposing the section.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 9.

Bell, Michael,

Crawford, Seymour,

Boylan, Andrew,

Finucane, Michael,

Broughan, Tommy,

Fitzgerald, Brian,

Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny),

Rabbitte, Pat,

Byrne, Eric,

Ring, Michael,

Costello, Joe,

Sheehan, P. J.

Níl

Ellis, John,

Fox, Mildred,

Keaveney, Cecilia,

Kitt, Tom,

Leonard, Jimmy,

Nolan, M. J.,

O'Keeffe, Ned,

O'Rourke, Mary,

Power, Seán.

Question declared carried.
Section 9 agreed to.
Barr
Roinn