I welcome the Bill. It goes a long way towards introducing a means by which the protective services of the State in this field can be utilised and better availed of by people who feel aggrieved. To a great extent it gives them a permanent structure through which they can act. It goes some way towards giving the community as consumers access to the centre of power. I say some way because I do not mean all of the way, but it is a step on the way.
I am not suggesting, while I welcome the Bill, that it satisfies all that is needed to protect consumers. It is something that is on its way to better things and that is what generates my interest and welcome. It is clearly up to the politicians and other people involved in the consumer protection area to see that advances on this Bill follow. It is incumbent on interested parties in consumer affairs to keep a watchful eye on developments because this lays the basis for good development.
Speaking as a layman, I found difficulty in understanding everything that was contained in the Bill. It looked to me after a while, getting a little bit bored reading it, like a long legal document. The evidence of that has been shown here because the people who got the best out of the debate are those who have some legal background and knowledge or who have some training and experience in this area. Those who are sellers are consumers in some other respects, I am as interested in their welfare as I am in that of the people I would be more or less talking about. My main concern lies in being ever vigilant on behalf of consumers. I say that largely in respect of the individual consumer. I say it also in respect of the means by which he can get both redress for his complaint and compensation. I cannot stress that enough.
Although the Bill does not deal with compensation arising out of a claim the question of redress is still there in that consumers can, through the director of consumer affairs, get at the people whom they say have cheated or misguided them and they can bring prosecutions. They have to adopt a separate procedure if they want to get compensation if they feel very aggrieved. It could be argued that the ideal would be to have the two situations linked together in one Bill. I am not too sure that that type of legislation would work unless there were other bodies in existence which be more effective than the present national consumer authority. Something on the lines of a Ministry of Consumer Affairs would be needed to back up that kind of Bill. In present circumstances, I feel it is not on. These are areas that can be debated in the future. The Bill has laid the foundation for that and I look forward to further developments. It could well be argued that a Minister for Consumer Affairs, if such were to be contemplated, might not work for the consumer. He might, in fact, in some cases work against the consumer. I am not being adamant about this matter but it is an area where there is scope for a lot more debate.
While I expressed a great deal of satisfaction with the Bill there is need to widen the discussion and deal with the best means of protecting consumers' interests. I mentioned the National Consumer Authority but they do not have teeth. Would a more effective one be helpful with similar powers to a Ministry or is that a practical proposition? Would it be realistic? On the other hand perhaps a type of local provision by local government for consumer protection might be more beneficial to supplememt what exists at present. In other words, what can we do to improve the scope, control and operation of consumer protection and the relationship with private groups that are involved? Is there room for the argument that small clains for compensation should be dealt with through separate courts to avoid the delay and expense of going through the ordinary courts, and so on? We are heading in those directions. A fuller debate on those areas would be very beneficial to bring about the real consumer protection that is needed to give the consumer a real share in the economy.
In fairness, the Bill tries for a unified trading standard but it misses out in some fields, for example, in that of weights and measures. Perhaps in the type of debate I suggested those arguments could be used helpfully to advance the legislation. Again there is scope on the question of surveillance and advertising. As regards advertising, there is a statutory code of advertising practice. I wonder how effective it is as regards consumer protection. I do not know how far they can go to test advertising claims or to sponsor the testing of claims made by certain advertisers. The consensus of opinion on consumer matters would support the idea of a stronger Government agency with powers and facilities for large scale testing. That is called for in a lot of cases. It would need scope for adequate publicity for its reports, for dealing with consumer complaints and for acting as a channel for devising new regulations and enforcing them. These are the practical methods necessary to be pursued. I am not saying that there are none of them in the Bill. What I am saying is that there is scope for advancement to bring the consumer more into the scene as part of the economy rather than being just a consumer. They should have the right to know what competition is about and how they can make an effective input. Prices were mentioned earlier on and this is one way that we could deal with that question.
I mentioned local government and so on. What is wrong with information services being available on the high streets? What is wrong with a grant being given to the corporation to put up a site where consumer protection and consumer advice could be given? These are areas where there is scope for further development. The Bill has given that scope to the Minister who introduced it.
As socialists we are aware of the increasing deterioration in living and working conditions not only in Ireland but in the whole of Europe where the capitalist system obtains. Consequently I see—whether it is a bias or not I do not know—the consumer being the person who is losing out in the widening gap between the producer and consumer. I am not putting forward anything to suggest that the seller has not got any rights, because he is a consumer in another instance. Of course he has rights. What I am saying is that the actual producer as distinct from the person who runs a monoply with no registered offices in this country is very far away from the consumer. That gap is widening and the power of the consumer is diminishing.
We, as socialists, would like to see a situation developing where some kind of action could be taken by a social-economic group to enable the protection of consumers' interests to be developed much more strongly. We could go that far and are extremely interested in seeing that consumer information is unbiassed. We are very concerned that consumer protection against misleading advertising is pursued. In this respect I propose to outline where some of the abuses lie in the hope that I can highlight the need to create an island of consumers and not solely an island of big business, because the consumer is part of the economy and should not be seen just as a consumer.
The Bill is encouraging and lays the foundation for more effective legislation. Consumers should be brought into the community through a much more permanent structure than they have through the Bill. We would like to see them in a position where they could organise properly as a social-economic group and be given access through the courts for both compensation and prosecution. I know they can bring prosecutions through the Director of Consumer Affairs but I am talking about the social-economic group having power to go to court themselves. That sounds a little radical but it is not all that radical in the final analysis.
The Bill, good as it is, will not wipe out illegal agreements and the dominant positions of certain people but it is a genuine endeavour to do so. If money could be advanced through the budget, for example to strengthen the staff of the consumer authority so as to move on from there to the creation of a consumer network it would be a further step. I say this particularly since the monopolistic tendencies of multinationals who are very far removed from us in not having registered offices in Ireland or, for that matter, maybe not even in Europe, damage the rights of consumers. The consumer dealing with those people is not in a position to demand the right to competition. Consumers should not be left to take up defensive policy positions but should, with State aid, be able positively to promote their interests with emphasis on preventive measures and recognition of their rights. Consumers are not only purchasers, they should be full partners in the whole economic process.
On the question of advertisements, surveillance, vigilance and the right to tests, it is very serious when harmful substances, used frequently in foodstuffs. cleaning materials, cosmetics, pharmaceutical products and so on are advertised through the media. The consumer does not know what the properties are, only that they have some chemical name or else they are generally described as colourants. This is not good enough. Apart from the harmful effects on society from the consumers point of view, and the damage it may do to health, it is wrong that they can be advertised without somebody being able to test them. The onus must be put on the producer to provide prior proof of the harmlessness of anything that he is going to advertise or put on the market.
There is also the question of harmonisation of laboratory standards. In some European countries research has taken place only after numerous complaints and there has been evidence that some of the substances are of a harmful nature. This does not help to put the onus of proof on the person who is advertising. Something stronger than that is needed. Instead of the consumer being on the defensive he should be in a position where he can put the onus on industrialists or producers to prove that the product they are producing and putting on the market or advertising is harmless. Very often there was no widespread publication of the findings of the research carried out in Europe. The administrative and professional side of it were very secretive. If we become involved in that, and we should, the results of tests should be publicised widely. We should also know about the administration and professionalism involved in it.
I said earlier that the seller was also a consumer. Sometimes people might think that I do not recognise this fact. I have dwelt on the word "consumer" much more so than on the word "seller". I believe that the disadvantage lies with the consumer. There has been a great emphasis in this debate on the legal aspects. I have no quarrel with that. Business people are better geared, better structured, better legally advised and can afford to make greater use of much more effective organisations than the consumer can. The consumer has not the same effect and his power over the years has been diminishing.
I mentioned in the course of winding up on the Appropriation Bill that an imbalance existed between the powers of the consumer and those of the manufacturer and supplier. I attributed this to the fact that there was a concentration on mass production. This is one of the factors that has contributed to a widening of the gap between the consumer and the seller or producer. That imbalabce will be remedied to some extent by this Bill but there is a long way to go. I am not suggesting that producers should gang together and create a great plot. Not only is there need for strong mechanisms, and we have a few in the Bill, to deal with consumer protection, there is need for constant and effective policing of how those mechanisms are doing in the light of the rate and pace of change arising from the spread of technology. The need for consumer protection arises from other activities of the consumer society. I mentioned the mass media earlier. Through the mass media and by large-scale advertising people, in increasing numbers, are influenced to buy. Maybe this is the manufacturers' way of getting the most out of their plants and their workers, but it does not end there. I want to see plenty of work for the workers and plenty of advertising to keep jobs alive, but it does not rest there. The dishonesty commences when the producer, manufacturer, advertiser or agent for the producer has stimulated people into buying in increasing numbers.
This is not sufficient in itself and a campaign gets going, the little trick called "re-consuming". There is misleading advertising. The belief is promoted by subtle means that the product is the greatest in the world. It is suggested that last year's product should be thrown away and this year's product should be purchased.
The psychology is clear. It is not a question of advertising to try to sell people what they need. It is the psychology of creating a scrambling selfish system, and the vicious circle continues. In circumstances like this the consumers must be protected. They must be protected against aggressive and misleading publicity about goods which are detrimental to health. The manufacturer's logic is understandable. Naturally he tells the advertising people that his campaign must be geared in the first instance towards persuading consumers that a certain product is good and then getting them to throw it away, or to change from it to the latest product advertised. The procedure creates dissatisfaction with existing products. That is understandable but it is not beneficial to the consumer. Manufacturers and sellers have problems but that system is not very satisfactory to the poor and the lowly paid who will be the greatest sufferers. Legislation must be geared to protect their interests to the full.
In effect I am saying that through the mass media, manufacturers and advertisers co-operating and in collusion with each other, trick and cheat, using the system that is legally open to them to do so. Because the consumer has so little power there is no way of taking them to task and having a full scale examination of what is advertised on the mass media. In the final analysis, no matter how we argue this, no matter what legal argument is put forward, the consumer is the most vulnerable person and his power is continually diminishing. If he is not given the fullest possible protection, with regular enforcement of all the consumer protection that is in existence and all the legislative mechanisms that are available to him, and if there is not a regular updating of those mechanisms, further technological developments, an increase in the size of manufacturing units, the spread of the multinational corporations will continue to diminish the consumer's power.
We in this House and Deputies in the Dáil have the greatest responsibility to the consumer. There is a physical and mental gulf between the manufacturer and the consumer and, if we are not vigilant, if we do not bring in more legislation and enforce it, the little bit of power and protection the consumer has will diminish. Many of the things I am saying are an unpleasant reality. I do not make any apologies for saying them, and I do not make any apologies for placing great emphasis on the need for continual vigilance. These tricks are completely undesirable. The consumer has not got access to the mass media and other forms of advertising to try to redress the balance. The consumers who get the rawest deal are the poor, the ill-educated and the elderly. These people should be the concern of every one of us and certainly they are the concern of the Labour Party. We must give priority to their needs. We are interested in the seller, the manufacturer, the producer, and so on, because he produces jobs but, as a socialist party, we make no excuse and no apologies for laying emphasis on the protection of the poor, the ill-educated and the elderly. They are of particular interest and concern to us.
Earlier I made reference to the tendency for a physical and mental gulf to grow between the manufacturer and the consumer and I mentioned tricks built into the system. I should have stressed that there is no evidence to show that the manufacturer is not concerned about bridging the physical and mental gulf, possibly because it would not benefit him very much. Since it is well-nigh impossible for the consumer to bridge that gap, the onus is on this House to bring in the strongest legislation possible to protect the consumer. I am not saying the manufacturer does it with the idea of trampling the consumers into the ground, but he does not see it as his responsibility to bridge that gap. He gets his advice through the various organisations, through the legal bodies, and so on, and as long as he is just about right he is happy enough. The onus is on us to provide more consumer protection through properly organised bodies and agencies.
It is the Minsiter's responsibility, it is the responsibility of both Houses of the Oireachtas, to campaign as hard as we can to see that the consumer gets the best possible protection, to see that the situation does not deteriorate to the point where in fact it has deteriorated—there is the "re-consume" trick—and to see that people do not start producing goods of a lower quality in order to stimulate the need for replacement.
This is the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill. If you are going to produce inferior goods and if you want to take advantage of the mass media to get people to "re-consume", if the goods thrown away need a service, why should you bother too much about providing too good a service? You would defeat the "re-consume" trick and you would not be too happy with some obstinate consumer who was looking for services in an abundance of stocks, spare parts, and so on. I could not see manufacturers going overboard to see that stocks, spare parts, services, and so on, were there in abundance. They will do as much as is necessary to get by, or to satisfy people to some degree. If I am right in my argument about manufacturers trying to get people to throw away last year's goods. and using the media to do that then it would be a terrible contradiction where goods need a service, to start producing too good a service for those goods.
It seems to me that inherent in the whole question of the sale of goods and supply of services is whether it is in the best interest of manufacturers who employ agents to advertise for them to give the best possible service. Some give a good service, but that does not apply across the board. Certainly in many cases, if you did not give a good service you would not be too long in business. There are areas where a good service is not given. This is where the consumer is vulnerable and needs protection. If the mass-media can be used by manufacturers and their advertising agencies, and so on, to trick and cheat people into buying goods, there is no reason why the State should not use the mass-media to ensure that the consumer knows all his rights. There are one or two programmes on television and radio which do this, but the State should tell the consumer: "The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill, 1978, has gone through both Houses of the Oireachtas. We want you to get to know your rights under thar Bill. This is the agency to which you go." Why cannot we advertise to procect the consumer? The consumer is not just a buyer of goods. He is part of the whole economic situation.
I welcome the Bill. It is a step forward. If we are really serious about this matter we should continue to introduce consumer protection legislation. We should examine it at regular intervals. We should encourage socio-economic groups to get involved. We should encourage local government to set up advisory services and, if necessary, we should ensure that free legal, aid is available, or that a grant is given to the free legal aid services to set up a special sector to investigate the question of consumers' interests, not only to advise on them, but to represent the people's interests arising out of complaints under the existing legislation. We should encourage the free legal aid people to show where the legislation is not having an effect.
I feel strongly about this subject. There is more scope for consumer protection. I am not worried about the big business people. They have plenty of legal aid, plenty of well-organised bodies, plenty of resources to fall back on, and plenty of know how and expertise to give them all the protection they need. The consumer is the person who needs our help and the onus lies on both Houses of the Oireachtas to provide that help and I urge the Minister to bear that in mind.