Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 59: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the position regarding the draft Consumer Rights Directive; if she is satisfied that the existing rights of consumers here, such as the right to reject, will be retained; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44587/09]

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 72: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the response of the European Commission to the concerns expressed in the Sales Law Review Group report commissioned by her Department regarding the draft Consumer Rights Directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [44588/09]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 59 and 72 together.

The proposal for a Consumer Rights Directive was published in October 2008 and brings together in updated and consolidated form four existing Directives on doorstep selling, distance sales, consumer sales and guarantees, and unfair contract terms. Unlike the Directives it is intended to replace, the proposal has been drafted on a full harmonisation basis and, if adopted on this basis, would preclude member states from going beyond its protections in national legislation.

In the case of a complex proposal like the proposed Consumer Rights Directive, arriving at an overall assessment of its implications for consumer rights is not a straightforward matter. Some proposals, such as the proposed extension of the withdrawal period for distance and off-premises contracts from seven to fourteen days and the provision that risk would pass with delivery in consumer sales contracts, would enhance Irish consumer rights. Other provisions, such as those on unfair contract terms, broadly reflect the existing legal position here and would neither enhance nor diminish consumer rights.

Concerns about the proposal's impact for consumer rights in Ireland centre mainly on its provisions on consumer remedies for faulty goods and, in particular, on their implications for what is known as the right to reject. By this is meant the right to return faulty goods, obtain a refund of the price, and, in so doing, to terminate the contract. This is a well-established feature of Irish sale of goods law and, though qualified by quite complex provisions on the acceptance and rejection of goods, is an important safeguard for consumers and one that materially strengthens their hand in dealing with recalcitrant traders.

Though the proposed Directive makes provision for a broadly similar right to rescind the contract where goods are faulty, this applies only where the primary remedies of repair or replacement are unlawful, impossible or disproportionate, or are not made available by the trader, or fail to remedy the defect within a reasonable time or without significant inconvenience to the consumer, or if the same defect recurs more than once within a short period of time. A fully harmonised provision along these lines would, if adopted, mean that the right to reject would be a remedy of second rather than first resort for faulty goods.

The Sales Law Review Group, which I established in November 2008, in order, among other things, to assess the implications of the proposed Directive for Irish consumer rights and law, produced a comprehensive assessment of the proposal in a position paper published in July. Though the Review Group acknowledged the positive elements in the proposal, it stated that the provisions on remedies for faulty goods and a related provision that would reduce the liability period for faulty goods under Irish law from six to two years presented "the greatest threat to the protections currently enjoyed by Irish consumers". My Department has taken careful note of the points made by the Review Group and the Group's assessment has been of considerable benefit in informing our approach to the discussions on the proposed Directive.

I would like to assure the Deputy that my officials have expressed our concerns at EU Working Groups about the relevant aspects of the proposed Directive in clear and forthright terms. We will have the opportunity to restate them at political level in a policy debate on the proposed Directive at tomorrow's Competitiveness Council.

It is important to recognise however that discussions on the proposed Directive have a considerable way to go at both official and Ministerial level. The European Parliament is also set to begin its detailed examination of the proposal in spring 2010. While I am not in a position to disclose the state of play of discussions on the proposed Directive, I can say that the European Commission is fully aware of our and other member states' concerns about aspects of the proposal. In an address to the European Parliament's Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee in March, the Consumer Commissioner, Meglena Kuneva, stated that the proposed Directive "does not force Member States to give up their general contract law remedies in the case of faulty goods, for example the right to reject faulty goods..." She acknowledged the "understandable and legitimate concerns about crucial issues" in member states, including the provisions on remedies and the liability period for faulty goods. The Commissioner concluded by stating that she was "ready to work further on these questions" and that "it may be that certain consumer rights need to be reinforced.".