Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Minister of State for his comments. I thank Deputies Ahern and Donnelly for their support in this matter. I have listened to what the Minister of State said. I note what he said about the Private Members' Bill creating unnecessary duplication of effort and potential discrepancies. He said these matters were best progressed at the EU level. I disagree with him. I do not think that what is included in the directive goes far enough. That is why we are bringing this legislation. Just because the EU says something, it does not mean it should be the be-all and end-all of the matter. National legislation is important and should also be there if it improves an older set of recommendations or directives from the EU. The Minister of State said the matter was addressed in the right to repair directive but we do not think that directive goes far enough.

While I note Articles 4 and 5, one other point I take issue with is what the Minister of State said about the manufacturer having to provide the indicative prices for repair on a website so consumers will have access to information. Consumers are beholden to the manufacturer and if they ever have the misfortune to have a car in a crash, for example, they have the book value but if they compare that value to the manufacturer's price or the garage price, there are big differences between them, which would inevitably be weighted against the consumer.

Without meaning to repeat what I said earlier, there are a number of difficulties with or limitations in the directive. For example, what I said about vehicle design regulations can only apply to the few products that were covered through this. A point picked up by my colleagues is that there are loopholes for manufacturers. This legislation will give an ability to evolve if new products come in, whereas the directive is more limited in relating to and being directed at a certain number of products. That is not good enough, in our opinion. The EU has the right to repair directive, which bans anti-repair practices, but there is a loophole which says that it can be justified by legitimate and objective factors. I worry that will again be weighted in favour of the manufacturers. I have already mentioned the declared price being indicative. For those reasons, respectfully, I disagree with the Minister of State's argument that the directive is enough. I do not agree that this Bill will create duplication. I think it will only improve what is there. We will press this to a vote.

See this speech in context