A bill to ban devices like the remote controlled “Warmth” thermostat and “Fog Sensor” thermoregulation devices was tabled in the Dáil this morning.
The legislation, if passed, would ban devices that are “grossly unnecessary” or “unnecessary for their intended purpose”, according to a statement issued by the Department of Health.
The bill is being considered by the Dail, which has yet to take up the matter.
The Department of Public Health is currently studying the bill to ensure it is in line with the guidelines for the use of devices.
The proposed legislation is not the first such attempt to outlaw such devices in Ireland.
The government is currently examining similar legislation.
It was first mooted in the summer of 2014.
A similar bill was first introduced in March 2015 and passed with a majority of all TDs voting in favour.
The Government has since been accused of trying to legislate in a manner which is “dangerous” and “undemocratic”.
The proposed law is not being considered in the Irish legislature.
However, a similar measure, proposed in 2016, was ruled out of the European Parliament by the European Commission.
The EU’s chief legal adviser, David Hart, said the legislation was “unacceptable” in his statement to the Département.
The new bill would make the definition of a “gross necessity” in the bill “specifically limited to the following:”The use of a device in a way which is ‘grossly necessary’ for the intended purpose”The definition of “gross need” in Section 4(1) of the legislation would be “gross waste of public money or time”.
This would apply if the device was a “remote controlled thermostatic control, temperature monitoring device, fog sensor, or other device which is a device that is not used as a primary heating source”.
The bill also seeks to exclude devices that “can be reasonably expected to cause unreasonable annoyance or distress to others”.
However, the bill does not specify how this should be defined.
However the Dún Laoghaire TD who is leading the push to amend the bill said he would be happy to hear from the Department if it could clarify what constitutes a “reasonable annoyance or disturbance”.
However he was not convinced the definition was broad enough to cover “any kind of remote controlled device”.