I ask Mr. McCarthy to bear with us. I know he knows the procedures that have to go on. He has sat in this Chair on many occasions.

I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to any other persons in their evidence. I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate if they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via MS Teams that prior to making their contribution they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I propose that we publish the opening statements and submissions provided by the witnesses on the committee website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

With regard to speaking arrangements, witnesses will be invited to speak for approximately five to ten minutes. I will then allow each member to ask questions and make comments for approximately five minutes. We may have a second round of questioning, time permitting, where members will be allowed to ask questions or make comments for approximately three minutes. Members may be called as they appear on the week 1 speaking rota, which has been circulated. Committee members may substitute within their party or group. Non-members or substitutes may speak after committee members. Are these arrangements satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.

The minutes of the previous meetings that took place on Tuesday, 12 May 2026; Wednesday, 13 May 2026; and Wednesday, 19 May 2026 were circulated. Are these minutes agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the following witnesses to our meeting from the NSAI: Mr. Michael McCarthy, chairperson designate; Ms Geraldine Larkin, CEO; and Mr. Frank Collins, director of strategy and corporate services. Mr. McCarthy is no stranger to this parish having been a Senator, Deputy and committee Chair. He is here today as chairperson designate of the NSAI to discuss its strategic priorities for the role. I invite him to make his opening statement.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach, members of the joint committee and the committee secretariat. It is a pleasure to be here in conjunction with Ms Geraldine Larkin, CEO of the NSAI, and Mr. Frank Collins, who is director of strategy and corporate services. I thank the committee for its invitation to attend this meeting.

I am honoured by this opportunity. In the brief period since receiving the nomination to serve as chairperson of the NSAI, I have taken steps to engage with the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment as well as NSAI management in respect of the expectations not only of the chairperson but of the authority itself. Furthermore, the authority is guided by the statutory functions that have been allocated to it. I will take this opportunity to commend the work of the outgoing chairperson, Mr. James Kennedy, and the board members on not only the stewardship of the organisation but also oversight of the execution of the initiatives described in its current strategic plan. Seeking to close out important work yet to be completed in the final year of the new strategic plan, and considering what priorities need to be carried forward into the new strategy period, is a key consideration and something I will be engaging on further with both the board and NSAI management once my chairmanship has been ratified.

The NSAI occupies a unique and important position within Ireland’s economic and public infrastructure, with responsibilities that extend across standards development, certification, metrology and market oversight. While much of its work takes place behind the scenes, the organisation plays a significant role in supporting the functioning of modern industry, society and the competitiveness of the Irish economy. Its activities help provide assurance, consistency and confidence across a wide range of sectors, ensuring that products, services and systems operate safely, reliably and in line with expectations and standards. In doing so, the NSAI supports not only enterprise and industry, but also consumers, public bodies and communities throughout Ireland.

The organisation’s remit reflects the increasingly interconnected nature of trade, technology and regulation in a global economy. Through the development and promotion of standards, the NSAI helps Irish businesses access international markets, improve operational performance and align with evolving regulatory frameworks. At the same time, its work contributes to broader public policy objectives in areas such as sustainability, innovation, digitalisation, climate transition and infrastructure development. The organisation also plays an important convening role by bringing together industry, government, academia and technical experts to support consensus building and knowledge sharing on emerging challenges and opportunities.

The NSAI’s influence extends well beyond Ireland through active participation in European and international standardisation systems and collaboration with counterpart organisations across multiple jurisdictions. This engagement ensures that Irish industry and interests directly shape the development of European and international standards across many rapidly evolving sectors and technologies. It also supports the international reputation of Irish enterprise by reinforcing confidence in the quality, safety and reliability of Irish products and services abroad.

As technological, economic and geopolitical change continues to accelerate, the importance of trusted standards and metrology, technical expertise and quality infrastructure is becoming increasingly evident. Against this backdrop, the NSAI’s work has become ever more relevant to supporting resilience, competitiveness and public trust, providing a strong foundation for the organisation’s ongoing strategic development and the next phase of its growth and impact.

The current NSAI Strategic Plan 2022-2026 has provided a strong and ambitious foundation centred on innovation, growth, sustainability and public trust. I am joining the organisation at a particularly important point in its development as work has already commenced on the preparation of the next strategic plan for 2027 to 2031. While this process is under way, there remains significant opportunity for the board and executive leadership to shape a strategy that builds on the considerable achievements of the current plan while responding to the rapidly evolving challenges facing Ireland and Europe, including geopolitical uncertainty, changing markets, EU regulatory developments, cybersecurity risks and the growing influence of artificial intelligence. Throughout 2025, the NSAI continued to demonstrate the broad impact of its strategic direction through work that supports Irish enterprise, consumers, innovation and the wider economy. Guided by the theme of innovating to shape a safer, better, and sustainable future, the organisation advanced a wide range of initiatives across areas such as sustainability, digital transformation, construction innovation, and emerging technologies, while continuing to strengthen Ireland’s standards and quality infrastructure.

The NSAI’s work during this period reflected both its national and international importance. Across multiple sectors, the organisation supported businesses in improving quality, competitiveness and readiness for evolving regulatory and market requirements, while also contributing to consumer confidence and public trust. It continued to work closely with industry, government and stakeholders to encourage innovation, support best practice and help organisations adapt to changing economic and technological conditions.

At an international level, the NSAI further strengthened Ireland’s engagement within European and global standardisation networks through active participation in collaborative initiatives, strategic partnerships and standards development activities. The organisation also continued to expand stakeholder engagement and public participation in standards development, reflecting a growing awareness of the importance of standards, certification and quality assurance in supporting economic growth, sustainability and technological progress. As the NSAI now enters the final year of delivery under the current strategic plan, the development of the 2027 to 2031 strategy is being undertaken through a structured, evidence-based process that will assess lessons learned, emerging national and EU policy priorities, and future risks and opportunities across standardisation, certification, metrology and regulatory services. This provides a valuable opportunity to ensure that the next phase of the NSAI’s strategic development remains ambitious, outward-looking and responsive to the evolving needs of Irish society and the economy.

The NSAI plays a central role within the technical and quality infrastructure that underpins Ireland’s economy, enterprise base and international competitiveness. At a time when standards, certification, innovation and regulatory assurance are becoming increasingly important to trade, sustainability and technological advancement, the organisation’s work has never been more significant. If my nomination is confirmed, I would be proud to contribute to that mission and to support the NSAI in continuing to shape a safer, more innovative and globally competitive Ireland. My approach to the position of chair will be one of consultation and working with the board, the Minister, the Department and our primary stakeholders, including other Departments and agencies. I look forward to working closely with the chief executive officer and the rest of the NSAI management team. Together, we will strive to ensure the NSAI delivers in line with its strategy, the requirements of legislation and national objectives, within the context of a sound governance framework. I look forward to the opportunity to interact with members.

I thank Mr. McCarthy for his very comprehensive opening statement. I know that I am speaking for everyone in the room when I say that we really wish him the best in the very interesting role he is going to undertake, especially given the current geopolitical situation. I have no doubt that a strong presence such as him leading the way will be of huge benefit to the organisation.

Without further ado, we will move on to the first speaker. It will be Senator Linda Nelson Murray who will take my place on that.

The witnesses are very welcome. I feel I may have met Mr. McCarthy before years ago on something to do with insurance, but it is lovely to meet him here today.

We had the new chair of Enterprise Ireland in here a few weeks ago. This is a great opportunity to bring up a couple of issues I have spotted, which Mr. McCarthy may add to the NSAI plan for the next few years. Counterfeit and fake branded goods entering the Irish market has become a major consumer safety problem, particularly for children's products such as toys, scooters, clothing, accessories and baby items. Many of these products bypass basic EU safety testing and carry fake CE marks.

This came to my attention because a guy came into my office about two weeks ago. He is somebody who supplies products into Ireland that are very highly branded products that children just love. They catch these crazes, everyone wants them for six months and then they are gone again. He gave me a couple of boxes, which I will not show here today. This was a very highly branded item that had the same CE mark on it, and practically had the same barcode and same logo on it. Everything looked the same until I took the product out of the box. The one that was real smelled perfectly fine, but I can only imagine what would happen if the one that was fake burst in a child's hand. It smelled completely of a hazardous material. It actually smelled like petrol. I just could not believe this. He told me that these are everywhere in a lot of discount shops and retailers around the country.

I then did a bit of work researching toy safety. We have the toy safety directive of 2009 and a new toy safety regulation was adopted on 26 November 2025. It came into force in January and will take four and a half years to be implemented after the transition period. I know we have stuff there that guides us from a European point of view and from an Irish point of view, but at the same time the Irish market is flooded with these products. The role of the NSAI is critically important here because it is responsible for standards, certification and market surveillance in Ireland. Should we be doing things like stronger market surveillance or maybe some mystery shopping?

Unsafe products should be removed from sale immediately and publicly listed. Can we impose tougher penalties? Should we be running public safety awareness campaigns for mammies, daddies and guardians to make them realise that some of these products can be very unsafe? It is very hard for consumers to determine. There may be very little difference between two boxes unless you look at the products. Price may be a factor. If a product is that much cheaper, then, as the old saying goes, it may be too good to be true. There could be an awareness campaign with a slogan such as "A safe toy is no accident" or "A fake toy does real harm". Many parents genuinely do not realise that fake chargers can cause fires or that counterfeit toys can contain toxic chemicals, which I can absolutely vouch for. We should maybe run an awareness campaign. Should we have a supplier verification system, faster product recall system and offer support for legitimate Irish businesses?

As Mr. McCarthy rightly outlined, the NSAI's activities "help provide assurance, consistency and confidence across a wide range of sectors, ensuring that products, services and systems operate safely." One issue that I would like the NSAI to take into account in its strategy for the next few years is the unsafe toys, choking hazards and what can happen. As a mam of ten- and 11-year-old girls, I see first-hand when I go into some shops where the leg or head of a doll can be pulled off very easily. A child could put that in their mouth or the toxic materials inside something squishy. Squishy toys are all in at the moment. These are the toys I would target. What does Mr. McCarthy think about that?

I thank the Senator very much for her thoughtful contribution. I agree with her. As a parent of young children, I am aware that a constant fear, particularly when they are younger, is that they get a toy and a piece comes off. The consequences can be tragic in the extreme. There are a couple of issues around that. Whatever remedial action is required needs to be taken swiftly in order to deal with that. From the NSAI's perspective, there is a role for the Competition and Consumer Protection Committee, CCPC, around that to a large degree. We could do something internally. I will discuss it with the executive team. We could do something, for example, around promoting standards to highlight that issue. Any remedial or other action that can be taken to prevent the circumstances the Senator outlined needs to be taken on board and prioritised.

The NSAI might need to work closer with the CCPC as well as with customs. It is very hard to identify the differences between these products. It is only when they are opened up. We have the regulations in relation to the CE marks, the choking hazard warnings and all those things. The barcodes are the same, but the products are completely different. It is about working with customs and the CCPC. There was an assessed loss of €8.7 million to the Irish economy from toys that were identified as counterfeit in 2025. That is a lot of money for big giants like Smyths Toys Superstores and all the other ships that may be selling legitimate toys. Those were just the ones that they caught. We can imagine how many more are out there.

That is a great point. Stakeholder engagement is very important because we live in a fractured world. There are evolving events that are beyond our control. Who knows what the next big event might be or what implications it will have for us as consumers? On engagement with the CCPC, I will take up that stakeholder engagement piece with it. I will have discussions with the latter and get back to the committee in due course.

Will Mr. McCarthy get back to me personally on that?

Absolutely. I certainly will.

That would be great. I appreciate that. I thank Mr. McCarthy.

That is a hugely relevant point. I wish to come in on one small issue. The world is evolving. Shopping is evolving. We are shopping more online than on the main street. If I buy something for my young child or for the Senator's young child and it is coming in from China, how do we control the quality of that when there are billions of items available online?

In this day and age, we are all giving in to that kind of lure of online purchases. It is something that we not considered. In view of my vintage, I certainly would not have purchased things online once upon a time. I like physically seeing something and knowing it is okay. I have to debate in my mind as to whether I am going to purchase an item. There is a role here for people who are involved in that. There are some companies that are very good, for example, when it comes to returns or offering customer services. That needs to be a consideration of the people who opt to purchase things online. That said, there is a big piece here about cheaper products entering the European Union. Ultimately, there is a consumer choice in that regard. If there are cases where there are disputes or issues with the quality, delivery or payment in circumstances where the customer does not get what they paid for, then there have to be remedial responses that we can enforce in our jurisdiction. I would imagine it would be much more difficult if we are dealing with conglomerate online retailers. In my experience, a lot of them have been quite good to deal with in that sense. I had family occasions recently in respect of which there had been a lot of online stuff purchased. Some of the items had to be sent back, and the companies were good to deal with. I suspect that would not be the case across the board. We have to be very mindful of that in the context of standards in this jurisdiction and ensure that if there is an evolving trend or problem, it is dealt with.

That is a very important point. I call Deputy Clendennen.

I thank all our witnesses for joining us. I wish Mr. McCarthy well in his role. He mentioned the engagement he had with the Department and across the executive within the NSAI. Regarding stakeholder and sectoral engagement, are there any particular stakeholders or sectors that Mr. McCarthy feels need to be prioritised?

That is a great question. I thank the Deputy. There is a set of stakeholders involved. I do not see anyone being first among equals, but there are key stakeholders across other State agencies, Departments and representative organisations. That will very much depend on the issue of the day. The stakeholder engagement piece is very important in terms of introductions, but also in the context of ongoing work. There might be an issue that we cannot predict now that might become a matter of contention or that might exercise the minds of various stakeholders. On stakeholder engagement, it is my intention to do a round of introductions and then regular have interactions with the stakeholders. On one level, I am chairing a board and there is a strategy and strategic aims, but there are also operational issues that I will not be involved in. That is why I built that into my initial contribution. Stakeholder engagement will be important. Engagement with this committee will be a very important stakeholder engagement. It will be good for the committee, but also good for the NSAI that we present and interact with members who are picking up the issues at the coalface. It is the whole State. At the moment, there is that presentation of stakeholders. The issues will direct and determine the timing and depth of engagement. I have a key set of stakeholder engagement list.

From a sectoral perspective, Senator Nelson Murray mentioned children's toys. Is there a risk register within the NSAI? I am maybe asking an unfair question here considering that Mr. McCarthy is so new to the role. Is there a risk register in respect of sectors that could potentially be problematic?

I am not aware of that. I am at the point where I am still effectively waiting to be officially appointed and am reading myself into the role. I will get back to the Deputy on that.

Ireland has made huge progress in the past number of decades in relation to innovation, entrepreneurship and, in order to ensure that we maintain the highest standards, regulation. Does Mr. McCarthy have any concern when it comes to competitiveness and the bureaucracy around standards that the balancing act could end up being weighted in one direction?

Competitiveness is key to a functioning modern economy. There is a big enterprise piece around competitiveness. There is also an absolute requirement that we ensure that regarding the issues the Deputy and Senator Nelson Murray flagged, that there are rigid standards, and they are enforced. There is a journey for the NSAI in conjunction with some other partners around the time efficiency of that. Ultimately, we are driven by the objective to do this transparently, make evidence-based decisions and arrive at a position that is good for the economy, but also good for the consumer. I take the Deputy's point at another level. There needs to be a happy medium whereby we do not become a barrier but, rather, we facilitate standards to ensure competitiveness and that economy continues to focus. I see the Deputy's point that it is a middle ground that can be found as well.

I have one final point. There are kids in schools today who will graduate from college in a certain number of years. The jobs they will take up have not even created yet. How do we ensure that the standards that we have to monitor at present will be maintained and upheld in a viable manner, while at the same time having an eye to the future to ensure that we maintain our level of focus on innovation?

There is an ongoing function within the NSAI itself that will continue to do audits and spot checks in order to ensure that we fulfil our statutory mandate. That is number one.

The Deputy is dead right. If we put the clock back ten years ago, there were predictions we could not possibly make given the way innovation has inspired enterprise policy. Then, we can look at the technological advancements. Who knows what is around the corner? There is a constant monitoring piece as well to identify what the next new thing might be and in order to ensure there are generally good standards applied around that. We are talking about cutting-edge standards and innovation. There is a married piece there. We can do both and do them well.

There is always a quest for knowledge. We are learning all the time. An organisation like the NSAI is dealing with phenomena now that did not exist until recent years. I suspect that will be the case going forward. On our part, there will always be a quest to learn what that might be. For example, there might a product on the market in six months that might be available in other markets. There is a big learning piece for the organisation to find out what it is about and to study it, get the knowledge and apply the standard the product may require. It will be an evolving piece for us – taking an evolving enterprise economy with cutting-edge innovation attached to it.

This is a final question from me. When we look at the fallout and what happened as a result of defective concrete blocks during a construction boom, one could argue there was essentially a lack of oversight. Over the coming years we are going to invest the bones of €20 billion on energy infrastructure, and multiples of that on infrastructure on a broader level. How can we be confident that businesses, stakeholders and sectors that get involved in this area will be closely monitored and will meet adequate standards in relation to what they provide?

That is a great point, especially when we look at that level of expenditure. The remit of the NSAI is to do exactly that. Any products that come onto the market must conform to a particular standard. There is a lot of research and innovation around that concept itself, but we want to be absolutely certain that we carry out our remit in the interests of the consumer, in the public interest but also in the interests of the enterprise economy, so that whatever the development might be, the standard will be applied to it and rigidly enforced. I grant that there will be new phenomena as we as we deal with an evolving economy and all sorts of technologies, but to apply that same level of standard to unknown products coming onto the market will be as important as applying the standards to well-established and well-identified products.

I thank Mr. McCarthy.

That is a very interesting point. On that, when Mr. McCarthy says the NSAI is controlling the standards for products, are they only products made in Ireland?

No, it refers to products that come onto the market. There could quite easily be products from another jurisdiction.

I wish Mr. McCarthy well in his new role. It is a very important one. I want to get straight to the defective concrete blocks and IS 465. When will the new standards be completed?

I thank Deputy Conway-Walsh. It is good to see her again. My information is that the board made a decision on that in recent days and I think the standards will be published on Friday.

This Friday?

Yes.

We have been waiting for them for far too long. I hope that will be based on all the science that has been available to us, both nationally and internationally. How can we be sure that the materials coming from the quarries now are fit for purpose?

The short answer is that this is really important, particularly given the experience of the topic the Deputy has mentioned. It has been beyond difficult for people who had to suffer the fallout from that. All of the decisions, at a general level from the perspective of the NSAI, are evidence-based decisions. That is really important in order to ensure that this type of situation does not repeat itself or happen again. It is absolutely crucial that there is huge interrogation of those products and that there is a rigorous, evidence-based process that arises from the application of that standard. I cannot be strong enough on that. It is really important.

I and others have proposed that a geologist would be appointed by the Government to oversee the quarries to ensure that the composite coming out of them is fit for what we need it to do. Is that something that would be considered or recommended? How do we have oversight?

Government policy is Government policy and it is our function to operate within the parameters of that policy. Hypothetically, if the Government makes a decision and it is a requirement for the NSAI, then we have a statutory obligation to fulfil our mandate in that regard. That will be very important in terms of what is expected of us within the parameters of our statutory remit.

Governments can change and decisions and circumstances can change, but there is a very strong role for us in applying particular standards no matter who is in government or what the policy might be. For example, if the Government in its wisdom decides in six months or six years to do something that involves us, then we are required by our remit to do that.

So the Government sets the standards rather than the NSAI.

No, I am not saying that. I want to preface that by saying I am still reading myself into the role so I am not as deeply familiar with the deep dives, for example.

I appreciate that.

That being said, if there is information I do not have now to satisfy the Deputy's request, I am very happy to get back to her on it. The point I was making, essentially, is that if the Minister decides, for example, to appoint geologists in quarries and if there is an oversight role there for us, then we have to fulfil our mandate around that. Whatever the Government policy or decision might be, we have a role to fulfil within our statutory remit.

Okay. We will have further discussions on this as we go on in this regard and as we scrutinise the new standards that come out. I hope they take the science into consideration, once and for all.

The ongoing interaction with the Oireachtas joint committee will be very important from my perspective. Even outside of that, if there is an issue that needs to be flagged, I urge the Deputy to please do so.

Right. In terms of products, there is increased spending on defence. Most products these days are made up of components that are sourced from many different countries and states. How do we have control over those to ensure that they adhere to standards?

The application of the standards would be universal. That is the challenge. Defence spending is going in one direction, but there might be other unknown phenomena, as I referred to earlier, that might be an issue in six or 12 months. Our role will be to adjudicate on that, use the science, make evidence-based decisions and apply a standard, almost irrespective of where the voted expenditure might be or where the private enterprise that is coming into the market might be. There is an ongoing consistent role for us to monitor that, learn more, evaluate based on science, make those decisions and apply those standards.

Does the NSAI have any control over the jurisdictions that those components are sourced from?

No, we do not have any role in that.

We need to be more cautious now than ever before about cybersecurity, plus the other roles the NSAI has around security as well.

What about the disparity in standards between here and the North? How does the NSAI and its counterpart in the North ensure that there is an all-island approach to standards?

There is close collaboration between the NSAI and international standards bodies. There is international participation in the unit programmes. Without knowing specifically, I suspect there is an alignment in the approach of the different standards bodies. I presume there is also a standard they all apply to themselves. I am not aware of what might be different between Northern Ireland and here, but I can read up on it. There is extensive collaboration with other bodies in other jurisdictions.

I very much understand that Mr. McCarthy is just reading into the role as it stands. I would certainly encourage that so that we would have a uniformity of standards inasmuch as we possibly can across the island.

It is a great point. Absolutely.

That is particularly the case with the mutterings about Britain moving away from the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR. All kinds of complications arise there.

It is a great point. In regard to geography, there might be a particular issue in one location and a different issue with another location 10 miles down the road. Someone might say it is the same thing but it might be different. That would not be helpful. I take the Deputy's point and will read into it.

Whatever help Mr. McCarthy needs from us and maybe our ministerial team in the North to have that uniformity across the island, he should let us know about.

I will of course. I thank the Deputy very much. I appreciate that.

Excellent points. I call Deputy Dolan.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I thank Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Collins and Ms Larkin for being with us. I have a few quick questions to run through. I appreciate that Mr. McCarthy is coming into the role and wish him every success with it.

Given the serious concerns raised recently about construction standards and defective products, does the NSAI believe it currently has sufficient enforcement and inspection powers to protect consumers effectively? What I am really getting at there is whether the officials believe the authority has enough powers, be those of inspection or enforcement, to ensure consumers are protected. If we look back at what happened over the years, there clearly were not sufficient checks and balances to ensure that products that were entering the market were fit for purpose, or else there were and they were circumvented. I am trying to figure out whether the officials are confident that the authority has the powers to do what it needs to do to protect people.

I thank the Deputy for his opening comments, which I appreciate, but on this particular one in terms of enforcement, there is no role there for us.

Okay.

However, there is the overarching piece about stakeholder engagement. There are other organisations that have a role and there is a role for me as chairman of the NSAI to reach out to those stakeholders because it might be grouped in the larger discussion on what the principle of the issue might be. I take the Deputy's point on board but in this particular instance, we do not have a role. I am very happy to engage with other State agencies that do, though, and report progress back for our next interaction with the joint committee.

I noticed something recently and it seemed like something that was popping up more frequently in the last few weeks. Maybe I was oblivious to it and had not seen it before but I have seen a few NSAI stickers on petrol and diesel pumps. It obviously means those pumps have been checked or certified. Will one of the officials explain to me what that means, how that works and whether there was a particular push in the last few weeks to check as many pumps as possible, given there was a lot of public concern about the potential for price-gouging? Were these just regular checks? I would appreciate any information on that.

I might ask the CEO to respond but I take the Deputy's point. I became aware of it in recent weeks with the logo, the certification, and the application of that piece of metrology around what it might be in terms of weights, measures or volumes. I will let the CEO respond to that.

I thank the Deputy very much. One of the functions of the NSAI is to ensure accurate measurement where the consumer interacts with products that are sold on a volume or measurement basis. We have resources available throughout the country that check and supervise the measurements you are seeing. There was not any special initiative. I am glad to see the Deputy is noticing them. We do it across the entire country. If people do not see that logo, we ask them to tell us because that is an instance of a pump operating without approval and verification.

Okay. Maybe I did not pay heed but I had never really seen them and then in the last few weeks I saw them at multiple sites. I thought it was a really important exercise. It is important that the NSAI make the public aware it is doing this because it is what will give the public confidence that a retailer's pumps have been independently checked by the system. That is really welcome. I do not know why but I just noticed it in the last few weeks, and having the officials here presented an opportunity to raise it, so they are doing a good job in that regard.

I was going to go down the road of the building defects but we spoke about that. Does the authority monitor compliance with Irish or European standards for construction materials?

The NSAI does not have our own standard but we kind of amalgamate with the European standard.

I will give it to the Deputy very briefly. The construction standards are drawn from a mix of European standards and Irish standards and, of course, they refer back to the building regulations as well. When we are considering a product that is coming before us, it is an amalgam of those three areas of requirements and regulations that are coming forwards.

I am sorry but I missed the start of the Deputy's question.

It was about whether the authority monitored compliance with an Irish or European standard, especially in construction materials.

Given that is the framework within which we operate, at the point in time a product is being approved to go on the market, we check and verify that the product is compliant with those various frameworks, like the building regulations, Irish standards and European standards. Thereafter, we typically do not monitor whether the product complies with the-----

So, the obvious question-----

The reason for that is our mandate provides that we check the product that is going on the market and our mandate finishes once that is approved, unless we get a complaint directly to us that a product is no longer compliant and is in breach of one of our approvals, so we are not-----

Does that happen often?

No. We have no statutory mandate to do the type of market surveillance the Deputy is describing.

Okay. I will finish with that.

Following the Deputy's point, and Deputy Conway-Walsh's point, I am thinking about the defects in the blocks. I know it is unfair to Mr. McCarthy to ask this question but how was that devastating scenario allowed to happen?

I would probably have been here in the Oireachtas at the time and certainly as a consumer of media circles I was equally as appalled as anybody here would be. I would not have had an input or an experience other than to share the absolute horror of what happened to people affected by that. Something clearly went wrong somewhere. My focus as chair of the NSAI will be to be sure I operate the board within the corporate governance framework of public service bodies, apply those standards based on the science and evidence required to arrive at decisions, and if there are any issues at any point that need to be looked at or re-evaluated, or if there is an input on a particular matter, I would welcome that input in my role as NSAI chair. Historically, I would not have been aware.

Briefly, do we know what happened and why it went wrong?

From my perspective, I do not know, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

It is a concern that we do not know and that we cannot walk out of this room reassured this will not happen again.

I know, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

You do. Okay.

When I get in again, I will tell you.

Okay. I call Deputy McCormack.

Thanks very much, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, and thanks to Ms Larkin, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Collins for coming in. I thank Mr. McCarthy for his opening statement and congratulate him on his appointment as chairperson of the board. I wish him the best of luck going forward.

With that in mind, and as he is coming to it with a fresh pair of eyes, has he seen anything in the board or the workings and mechanisms behind the NSAI that he thinks should be changed straight away? What is his focus going to be as chairperson?

I thank the Deputy for his remarks, which I appreciate. There are two things. At this stage, I am still chair-designate and have not attended a board meeting yet, so I cannot say what there might be. In a month's time, I will have an idea.

The other point is really important. I want to chair these meetings in a very transparent way. I want to ensure that we have a high level of debate at those boards. I want to ensure that I, as chairman, chair those within the corporate governance framework as set out for public bodies. That is really important. It is a big organisation. There is a lot happening. There are over 270 staff, so there are quite a lot of people in it. There is a big operational piece I will not be involved in, obviously, but I want to chair the board in line with the exacting standards as applied by corporate governance frameworks.

On the other piece, I think the first board meeting I will chair will be in late July. I will be in a better position subsequent to that to identify something to answer the first part of the Deputy's question.

I will move on from that and maybe get to Ms Larkin and finish off on the point Deputy Dolan asked. With regard to the standards that are there, the authority sets the standards but it does not go out into the field and check on those standards.

He has to get somebody to send him in a complaint. Is there not an onus somewhere along the way on the NSAI to have a team out there checking on standards to make sure they are being are kept up?

The other question I have is in regard to standards. How quick and agile is the team or the board in being able to set standards for new products or goods that are coming into the market?

I will deal with the first part of the question and Ms Larkin might deal with the timeframe around new products. I want to reiterate, in regard to stakeholder engagement, that there is clearly a mandate for us that we have to fulfil. I understand it might overlap. You might say, for example, "God, why does the NSAI's role stop there?". Someone else's role begins there. That type of interaction with other stakeholders, if and when that is the case, will be really important. We might very well identify something or be party to a development in that particular sense. I think that stakeholder engagement is crucial. For example, in the earlier part of the session, I referred to collaborating stakeholder-wise with the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. That would be stakeholder engagement, from my perspective, to enrich my own skillset and find out the impact of our standard and perhaps a follow-up to it. There is a mandate. There is not a cliff face because someone else takes over. That piece of stakeholder engagement will be hugely important, not least in regard to the issues members have broached here with me today. In short, I will say that hopefully, in six months' time, I will be more aware of what those issues might be to do a deeper dive on them. The backdrop to it is that while it might not be our role, our role begins and ends here and it is the other part of that journey with other stakeholders that I have engaged with.

Does Ms Larkin want to come in on the other part?

I thank the Deputy. Typically, standards can take upwards of two years to complete.

That is quite long.

Part of the reason for that is that standards are built on consensus, drawing from various technical experts. At European and international levels, there is a huge awareness that standards now need to move faster because technology is evolving so fast. There are a number of different proposals for ways in which, as a standardisation community, we can increase the speed of that while at the same time maintaining the robustness of the standard. The challenge is always making a fast standard but then industry investing on the back of that standard and there perhaps being some issue with that. One of the proposals - this is being raised and trialled at European and international levels - is where industry associations and conglomerates might have come together and agreed-----

In other words, what Ms Larkin is saying is that the NSAI is looking at ways to try to make it faster.

Absolutely.

I suppose everything in government at the moment is about speed. We are looking at infrastructure and the Critical Infrastructure Bill, and that is all about taking out the bottlenecks. In the NSAI's case, it needs to happen as well. Maybe we do not have to wait for the Europeans and we can do it ourselves here.

The reason I referenced Europe is that if we are setting standards, we want those standards to have the maximum competitive application.

Okay.

A European standard is of more value to an Irish company than an Irish standard.

We have artificial intelligence, AI, coming in now to take over. We are all looking at it and wondering what is going to happen, and where we are going to be in a few years' time. We have to be very agile and the standards have to be put in place as quickly as possible. In a lot of cases, that technology could be way out of date in two years' time. That is why it is vitally important that we get on top of it.

Is there a case for us needing to have a review of the standards already in place in order for businesses to be more competitive and take out what is holding them up, or does the NSAI have stakeholder engagement with businesses to see how it can make it easier for them?

Standards are constantly under review. Those standards are under review by industry stakeholders. It is not the NSAI or indeed European standards organisations sitting in a room isolated. We provide the channel and the mechanism for industry to come together and provide that review and mechanism. We do it on an Irish basis and, equally, we provide the channels for Irish industry to participate at European and international levels. It is a really important concept that Irish voices get heard and can shape and influence those standards on a European and international basis and then impact competitiveness on that larger scale as well. That is an ongoing programme. The critical piece we are dependent on is industry representatives coming forward to give of their time to participate, on the one hand, in bringing an Irish voice to European markets but then equally being able to see what is happening at a cutting edge in those markets from others across the globe.

I thank the witnesses. I appreciate their responses.

I thank Deputy McCormack. I wish to express my appreciation to the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Deputy Brian Brennan. He allowed me to do Leaders' Questions on RTÉ. The witnesses are very welcome and I want to express my good wishes to the emeritus Deputy, Mr. Michael McCarthy. I know he has been doing interesting work in IBEC, etc., and there is other work he has been doing. I am sure people have interesting questions for him here today.

There has been great engagement.

Fantastic. We will go now to the next slot in the name of the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Deputy Brian Brennan.

I thank the witnesses for their engagement so far. If Mr. McCarthy does not mind, I wish to focus on him. It is not an interview; he has gone through that process already. It is a huge position to take on. Why has he gone for this position? If he does not mind me asking, what are his qualifications for this position? More importantly, on his vision, what are the obstacles he sees ahead of him and the priorities he has going forward?

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. Why? There is an element to this. I applied for it through the Public Appointments Service, PAS. It assesses the eligibility of the candidates and there is a process you go through. This is part of the process and, ultimately, the Minister makes that decision. If you look at my skill sets and background, as the Leas-Chathaoirleach said, I chaired many committees where chairs designate came in front of us. There is an element here of public service. That is really important. There was a flavour of it in the debate with the Deputy's colleagues in the Oireachtas joint committee earlier. This, to me, is a very important forum for us. There is a multiplicity of issues that need to be dealt with at any one time. In regard to the skill set in respect of Oireachtas experience, the experience from chairing boards and various bodies - voluntary and otherwise - has, I believe, given me a skill set that I can contribute. There is a big piece around public service attached to that.

On the obstacles - I think I touched on this in the opening statement, and I will refine it - we are living in an ever-evolving and changing society. Over the past number of years, between Brexit, the Covid pandemic and the recession before that, it has just been ever-evolving and I think that has changed a lot of the certainties we traditionally had. Industry itself and Government responses have been challenged, and policymakers like the members have been really tested and challenged by the fractious nature of those evolutions, be they global, geopolitical or, for example, in the enterprise economy, and how it has transformed in recent years. The challenge for me in chairing the board would be dealing with those issues we cannot yet identify, if that makes sense. There is a continued engagement. The NSAI has a huge role to play in serving the public good but also ensuring that we do our piece that allows that enterprise economy to go from strength to strength.

What are Mr. McCarthy's priorities going forward, over the next 18 months?

In short, my priority is to ensure that I chair the meetings of the NSAI in a very robust and transparent manner and that we get the best quality of debate to allow us to make the best possible decisions as a board within the framework of corporate governance as set out for public service bodies, of which we are one. That is really important. Whatever about the operations side of it, the strategic focus for me will be to drive the new strategy I referred to in the opening statement to ensure that we can live up to that strategy and that the board can be chaired to the required standard so that all of our decisions can deliver the best outcomes in regard to our strategic objectives.

Does Mr. McCarthy feel that the systems are in place? I will rephrase that. If somebody is producing in a substandard manner, are the penalties sufficient?

The short answer is that I do not know. We are at the very early stages of the process. I would like to think that if there is an infringement of any sort in regard to standards, there is a repercussion and the sanction around that is applied - not by us, in some cases, because we do not have that mandate.

Whatever body does have that mandate, it is really important that there is follow up, that the matter is brought to a conclusion and that infringements are dealt with. That ties back into the stakeholder engagement piece with those bodies, particularly the organs of the State.

I agree. It is important because the key phrase, which was used in the opening statement, is public trust. That is what we need. I know the NSAI is trying to get the balance between competitiveness and public trust. It is a very fine balance, and people should not be cutting corners.

Absolutely.

As was previously mentioned, some of these could involve life-threatening situations if checks are not made.

Absolutely. The confidence in the organisation is key, but public trust is also key. We need to ensure that in delivering the outcomes of our strategic vision for the next instalment of the plan for the period 2027 to 2031, we can deliver on the expectations around public confidence and trust. That is a really key part for me as incoming chair of the NSAI.

I am listening to everything Mr. McCarthy is saying, and I am with him on it. Is he taking up a role in a body in which public trust has been severely diminished because of what has happened in relation to what Deputy Conway-Walsh described?

There are significant issues. Certainly, when those issues become known, particularly through this process to understand what went wrong and where, I do not think the NSAI has been damaged. There has been serious erosion in public confidence and trust in some organs of the State for a multiplicity of reasons down through the years. From my perspective, I do not think this has adversely affected the NSAI. It would be my strategic priority that as we execute the strategy for the period 2027 to 2031, we bring the public along with us on that journey and deliver in the context of a very high standard of expectation on the part of the public.

In the context of the committee and the Government, what further supports does the NSAI need?

I will take that in a couple of parts. During my tenure as chair of the NSAI, there will be a significant relationship with this committee, other Oireachtas committees and Departments, including the Department of enterprise, which is our line Department. It may very well be the case that in a few weeks or months a particular issue will arise which we will be called in here to discuss. When and if there is an issue we need to look at, for example, from the perspective of the members who deal with such issues on the ground or if there is an expectation in terms of the application of standards or some type of innovation at Department level, I would appreciate that being flagged and that we could deal with it in the context of our relationship with the joint committee and with the various Departments, including our line Department in the first instance, senior officials and the Minister.

I thank Mr. McCarthy and wish him well.

I thank the Deputy very much.

Has everyone contributed? We have a second session, so I am conscious of time. Deputy Nelson Murray. Sorry, Senator Nelson Murray.

Some day soon.

The Senator is doing well this week.

This will be my second contribution if the Cathaoirleach wants to come in before me.

I ask that the Senator be brief. I am afraid that we might lose the quorum otherwise.

I would just like to clarify a point I made earlier. I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to do so. I mentioned that the value of counterfeit toys that would have come in may be about €8.7 million. That was a European operation that was just done by means of a targeted approach. It was estimated under EU IPO in 2024 that, on average, 10% of annual sales were lost due to counterfeiting in the toy sector in Ireland between 2018 and 2021. In Ireland, the sector is worth between €360 million and €600 million a year, which means that between €30 million and €60 million a year is being lost to counterfeiting. The online toy market, which is growing very fast, was worth €160 million last year. I know Mr. McCarthy is going to take it on board. I wanted to clarify my figures because it is much worse than what I said it was.

I thank the Senator for clarifying that.

Before we conclude this session, I want to acknowledge that I have seen the work Mr. McCarthy has done in Washington DC on a number of fronts in recent times. It has been fantastic. It is not often that Deputies or Senators here get to see what people do post politics. It is nice to see a former Member of the Oireachtas going on to work outside of this building and doing well for themselves. In all sincerity, I congratulate Mr. McCarthy and wish him well. I thank him and his colleagues for attending.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members.