Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 16, to delete lines 13 to 25 and substitute the following:

"31.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a party to an arbitration agreement who is a consumer shall not be bound (unless he or she otherwise agrees at any time after the dispute has arisen) by an arbitration agreement where—

(a) the agreement between the parties contains a term which has not been individually negotiated concerning the requirement to submit to arbitration disputes which may arise, and

(b) the dispute which has arisen between the parties to the agreement involves a claim for an amount not exceeding €5,000.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, a reference in this section to a consumer shall not include an amateur sportsperson who, in his or her capacity as such, is a party to an arbitration agreement that contains a term concerning the requirement to submit to arbitration.".

The substitute section I am proposing does not differ significantly from that which was inserted on Committee Stage. While there are some minor changes of a drafting nature, I think that there are only two issues which need to be drawn to the Deputies' attention. First, it is now proposed that, as a general principle, a consumer will not be bound by an arbitration agreement where the disputed claim does not exceed €5,000. The threshold originally proposed was linked with the current limit in the Small Claims Court which stands at €2,000. There was some discussion about the appropriateness of the €2,000 amount on Committee Stage. I indicated that I was willing to consider a somewhat higher threshold in order to provide further protection for consumer interests. This amendment carries through on that undertaking.

Second, there is a new avoidance of doubt provision which makes it clear that the section will not impact in any way on well-established arrangements whereby amateur sportspersons agree to submit to arbitration in the event of a dispute arising out of their participation in a particular sport. Since the proposed amendment no longer refers explicitly to Order 53A of the District Court rules, I hope that the Deputy is willing to withdraw his amendment.

See this speech in context