Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Nov 1978

Vol. 309 No. 7

Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill, 1978: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill represents a further major move to ensure certain basic rights for the consumer in buying goods or services. The House will recall that earlier this year we had the enactment of the Consumer Information Act which is designed to ensure that in various ways the consumer will have protection from misleading descriptions about goods or services. The present measure complements but in many respects is more far-reaching than the Consumer Information Act. Between them these two measures could be said to constitute a "consumer charter" and to cover most of the recommendations on consumer protection legislation contained in Chapters 1 and 2 of the report made by the National Consumer Advisory Council to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on 10 December 1974.

The recommendations which the council made, stemmed in turn from its examination of the report entitled "Consumer Protection Law in America, Canada and Europe" prepared for the National Prices Commission by Professor M.H. Whincup of the University of Keele and published as the commission's occasional paper No. 9.

I think it appropriate at this stage that I should pay tribute to the National Consumer Advisory Council and to the Prices Commission for their work in this area. Indeed, I believe that the contribution which the Prices Commission has made to increased recognition of the need for improved measures of consumer protection and consumer information in Ireland is not sufficiently appreciated.

For this reason I would like to recall that following its establishment in 1971 by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lalor, the National Prices Commission published a number of reports dealing with consumer protection one of which was that by Professor Whincup. These reports were major factors leading to the establishment of the NCAC and to the measure now before us.

In its overall intent and in very much of its details the Bill now before the House is the same as that entitled the Consumer Protection Bill, 1977, which was circulated by the previous administration in May, 1977. The Consumer Protection Bill, 1978, as introduced earlier this month by Deputies O'Toole, Bruton and Kelly is identical with the 1977 Bill.

In a statement which he issued when the Consumer Information Bill, 1977, was being circulated, Deputy Bruton, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, rightly pointed out that generally by reason of the nature and scope of the matters it covers the Bill was of profound public importance and was likely to have far-reaching implications for all sections of the community. The statement went on to express the hope that the text as then published would receive

thorough public scrutiny and debate in the light of which new and worth-while possibilities for improvements and refinements to the text may evolve.

That the House will address itself in such a manner to the present Bill is my earnest hope. I believe I am right in saying that there is a considerable degree of agreement on all sides not just as to the need for the Bill but as to its scope and provisions.

Not only is the Bill one of profound public importance but it is also a very complex and technical legal measure. Indeed, one could describe it as a lawyers' Bill.

When on taking up office I had to consider the position of the two Bills dealing with consumer protection that had lapsed on the dissolution of the Dáil, I decided to concentrate on the one which was the more advanced, namely the Consumer Information Bill. Following its enactment I then addressed myself to the other measure very much in the spirit of thorough scrutiny and the possibilities for improvements and refinements of the text. Precisely for the reason that the Bill is the complex and technical legal measure that it is, the process of re-examination took longer than I had hoped at the outset. The difficulty is that this particular measure is such that there can be divergent legal opinions on the best way to achieve a particular objective in the Bill and that any particular refinement or adjustment being considered has to be looked at not just in terms of what it is intended to achieve but of its effect on the balance of the measure as a whole.

I am in no way attempting to make a political point in saying that I believe that the changes that have been made in the text of the present Bill as compared with the Consumer Protection Bill represent an overall improvement. In saying that, however, I recognise that possibilities for further improvements and refinements may emerge as the debate on the Bill proceeds. Because I regard the measure as a politically noncontroversial if very complex one, I look to our deliberations being very much a co-operative exercise designed to achieve, if possible, further improvements in the text.

Before going on to deal with the provisions in the Bill, their purpose and their effects, I think that I should endeavour to describe briefly but I hope with reasonable accuracy the principal features of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 and the "implied" terms which are a feature of that Act and are central to the revisions of the law in favour of the consumer now proposed.

As the law stands at present, the buyer of goods in a retail sale has certain "implied" rights by virtue of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. These rights are "implied" in that they do not have to be specifically claimed by the buyer, either orally or in writing, whenever goods are bought. These implied terms are described in the Act either as "conditions" or "warranties". Breach of a condition entitles the injured party to repudiate his obligations and at the same time to claim damages. Breach of "warranty" on the other hand entitles him only to claim damages for any loss incurred; the injured party has to fulfil his side of the contract. The legal meaning of the term "warranty" in this context is different from its common use as a synonym for guarantee.

The Sale of Goods Act is a carefully drafted statement—or codification—of the law as it had developed in Britain by the end of the nineteenth century and reflects the market philosophy of that time. Thus it recognises the freedom of both parties—the buyer and the seller—to make whatever agreement they wish, and, as the Whincup report points out, the Act was intended to regulate the relationship of buyers and sellers only where they had failed to make express provision themselves for such regulation.

In short, the "implied" terms were intended to supplement, for the purpose of contractual arrangements, the agreement between the parties.

In keeping with the philosophy of the time, the Act presumed a general equality of bargaining power as between buyer and seller. Furthermore, the Act also provides under section 55 a means by which an economically stronger party may relieve himself of all liability for breach of contract, and, it would seem, even for negligence.

As is well recognised both inside this House and outside, the 19th century commercial pragmatism which permeates the 1893 Act is, for several reasons, inappropriate in modern circumstances.

First of all the 1893 Act was drafted at a time when sellers, because of the scale of their operations, were more immediately available to the buyer in terms of locality and number. Any onerous conditions which a supplier attempted to impose on a buyer could have been countered by the buyer threatening to take his business elsewhere. The era of distribution of mass-produced goods had not yet left the buyer in a situation where he has virtually no personal influence over what he can buy or the contract terms on which he can buy it. Whether equality as between seller and buyer really existed 85 years ago, the possibility of achieving it under the law as it stands grows less with every day that passes. It is to redress the balance in favour of the consumer that this Bill is being proposed.

Another aspect of the 1893 Act which has led to an erosion of the buyer's position is the regular use by many suppliers of the provision—to which I have already alluded—in section 55 of that Act whereby the seller can exclude his contractual liabilities to the buyer.

I am sure that every member of this House, at one time or another, has experienced the device of the exclusion clause. Its purpose and effects have been to trim or undermine entirely the implied rights of buyers. We have all lived with the fiction that the buyer willingly accepted these clauses excluding his rights. I propose in this Bill to curtail the use of such devices.

Another commonplace feature is the use of guarantees and warranties offered by manufacturers or traders in substitution for the legal right which buyers would have had under the provisions of the 1893 Act. I propose to ensure that the basic provisions of this Bill cannot be whittled away; traders may offer better, but they will not get away with anything less favourable to the consumer.

Consumers and organisations working on their behalf have urged strongly for a number of years that there is a real need for these changes. They have in particular been urged in the Whincup Report and in the recommendations thereon by the National Consumers Advisory Council.

From the background to and the need for the Bill I turn now to its general aims. These are: First, to bring up-to-date and improve the important provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 which set out the implied rights of buyers and conversely, the implied duties of sellers in a sale of goods.

Second, to remove certain anomalies in contract law which had operated adversely against the buyer, and allowed the seller to evade his proper responsibilities and to refuse to remedy faults.

Third, except in the case of title, to give to persons acquiring goods under hire purchase agreements the same legal rights—as to merchantable quality, fitness for purpose and others—now being made available to cash buyers; the logic of this approach is that hire-purchase is in substance—if not in form—a purchase.

Fourth, to extend to the buyer and the supplier of services, implied rights and duties somewhat analogous to those for goods.

Fifth, to improve the relief accorded by the law in the case of misrepresentation primarily by regulating the use of clauses excluding or restricting liability arising from misrepresentation.

Sixth, to provide greater protection for persons who received unsolicited goods through the post or otherwise and to regulate the methods by which entries in directories are collected.

The Bill has been structured so that associated provisions are grouped together to make it easier to identify those relating to specific areas, namely, the amendments of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893; hire-purchase; services.

Part I brings together the basic provisions necessary in all statutes and sometimes dispersed throughout the text.

Part II deals with the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 and contracts for the sale of goods and sets out the changes regarded as necessary to bring the law up-to-date.

Part III sets out in a self-contained way, the hire purchase provisions. All of these have been brought together in this part, even though some element of repetition of the text may appear to be involved.

Contracts of the Supply of Services are dealt with in Part IV and the question of misrepresentation in Part V.

The new provisions dealing with unsolicited goods and directory entries are dealt with in Part VI along with some remaining miscellaneous provisions.

As I mentioned at the outset, the Bill complements the Consumer Information Act, 1978, which is a criminal law measure of a generally preventive or regulatory kind, concerned to ensure that buyers are provided with reasonable and accurate information with which they can assess the options open to them when purchasing goods or services. Though the enforcement of the Consumer Information Act is primarily a matter for the Minister and for the Director of Consumer Affairs, there is also a place for the general public in that task.

On the other hand, this Bill is essentially a civil law measure to strengthen the position of the consumer in contract law, and thus is mainly a measure to be operated by the general public. There are however, certain provisions which involve public authorities notably the Director of Consumer Affairs. Sections 11 to 13 and 46 to 54 of the Bill contain these provisions.

Earlier, I expressed the view that this was a very complex and technical legal measure. In saying that, I had very much in mind that the process of further improving and refining the text—in which I look to the assistance of all sides of the House—is likely to arise more on Committee Stage than at this Stage. Nevertheless, in the interests of the fullest discussion on this Second Stage, I feel that it is necessary now to elaborate on the provisions in the Bill in a manner that, in another Bill, might be regarded as more appropriate to Committee Stage.

But first I should like to comment on the use of the Short Title "Sale of Goods and Supply of services" in preference to "Consumer Protection". The present measure for all its importance is but one of a number of measures in the consumer protection area. I have already mentioned the Consumer Information Act and of course, there are a number of older measures which also form part of the general body of consumer protection law.

Moreover, I do not envisage the present measure to be by any means the last piece of consumer protection legislation that will be introduced in the lifetime of the present Dáil. Another consideration in the choice of Short Title is that the extension to services of the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, as proposed to be amended, is in itself of such significance in my opinion as to warrant a reference to "services" in the Short Title.

I will now proceed to indicate more specifically the changes this Bill will make in the law. In doing this I will concentrate mainly on Parts II—Sale of Goods—and Part V—Misrepresentation. Parts III and IV, dealing with hire purchase and services respectively, are also very important but the changes in the law on sale of goods proposed in Part II are being extended in Part III to hire purchase and in Part IV to services. In that way, Part II lays the groundwork and sets the style for Parts III and IV.

In general, Part II is concerned with improving the buyer's lot under the Sale of Goods Act and in certain areas of contract law. In the Sale of Goods Act the areas where change is necessary and is proposed are

Sections 11 to 14: dealing with implied terms which are the heart of the matter.

Section 35: relating to acceptance of goods.

Section 53: relating to remedies for breach of contract and

Section 55: relating to exclusion clauses.

As Deputies will have noted, the Bill has been so structured that the amendments to the Sale of Goods Act are set out in the appropriate sections of the Bill in the form of tables which contain not just the revisions but the particular sections complete with revisions. This structure has the advantage that the revisions now being proposed in the Sale of Goods Act, can be seen in context. In that way the danger of what is termed legislation by reference is avoided; the other alternative—which was also considered in connection both with this Bill and the Consumer Protection Bill— would have been to produce a measure which contained the full text of the Sale of Goods Act. The fact that section 10 of the Bill deals with amendments to sections 11 to 14 of the 1893 Act does create some possibilities for confusion of reference, but the printers have I think, succeeded in laying out the text in a way that reduces the possibility for such confusion.

Beginning with section 11 of the 1893 Act and with the question of acceptance it has been held that injustice can arise for a buyer under section 11 (1) (c) which provides that once the buyer has accepted specific goods, a breach of any condition which the seller should have fulfilled can only be treated as a breach of warranty and not as a ground for rejecting the goods. This seems to mean that a buyer loses his rights to reject defective goods at the moment of purchase. In accordance with the recommendations of the report of the NCAC, section 10 of the Bill proposes to change the basis for such an obvious injustice. It is also desirable to ensure that acceptance as defined in section 35 of the 1893 Act is subject to the buyer's right to examine goods already provided at section 34 of that Act. Section 20 of the Bill contains the provision necessary to this end.

A further aspect in regard to unsatisfactory goods and a contractual commitment is dealt with in section 21. This amends section 53 of the 1893 Act in such a way that a purchaser who is a bona fide consumer will be able to reject faulty goods in circumstances where, under section 53 as it stands, he could only look for damages.

On the very important question of implied terms several amendments to the 1893 Act have been necessary. Section 12 of that Act, which deals with implied conditions and warranties as to title to goods is being amended to clarify the position in sales of limited title, where a third party may have an interest. The benefits of section 13 which provides for the implied condition that goods being sold by description must correspond with the description are being extended so as to apply to goods selected off the shelf in a shop.

Section 14 of the 1893 Act introduced in statute form the concepts of "merchantable quality" and "fitness for purpose" as implied conditions to protect the buyer. But the Act did not attempt to define "merchantable quality" and did not extend to those who might be acting as agents rather than dealers in goods. These weaknesses in the 1893 Act are being remedied in the Bill.

Section 22 adds several important new provisions to section 55 of the 1893 Act which is the section regulating exclusion clauses. The essence of the proposed new provisions is that implied rights as set out in sections 12 to 15 of the 1893 Act cannot be in any way voided by the use of exclusion clauses. A good deal of thought was given to the question of whether the use of exclusion clauses should be debarred only in the case of consumer sales or whether the prohibition should extend also to business sales. The House will, for instance, recognise that it would be unfair that a small retailer should be robbed of his right of redress against a large corporation through the use by the latter of an exclusion clause particularly as the retailer would himself be liable for any deficiency in the goods when sold to consumers. Whilst the complete prohibition of exclusion clauses will apply only in the case of consumer sales, in the case of sales between business people there is provision in section 22 for a test of reasonableness to be determined by the courts in respect of exclusion clauses. This I think strikes a fair balance between the need on the one hand to guard against exploitation of the small man by economically stronger and more resourceful groups and on the other the need to allow reasonable freedom to strong groups to bargain with each other on whatever terms they please.

To support these provisions making the various implied terms inescapable in contracts, it is also necessary to ensure that they cannot be evaded in any other way and that sellers cannot even claim or pretend to withhold them by notices or advertisements. This is done in section 11 of the Bill which makes it an offence to put up notices in shops that goods will not be exchanged or money refunded and so on. I am sure that most Deputies have received complaints about this practice of some shops who display notices saying "Goods not Exchanged" or "No Refunds". To make this provision effective, it is proposed that breaches of it will be an offence.

Section 14 is intended to plug a loophole which at present sometimes leaves credit purchasers without any recourse where goods are faulty. The seller has been paid in full by the finance house and the latter have no interest except to recover the amount lent to the purchaser. Under this section the consumer will no longer be left in a vacuum between the two, as both will have joint and several liability.

Another important new area covered is that of guarantees which, since 1893, have become much more a part of selling, and which are badly in need of rationalisation. Any seller now giving a guarantee will have to provide for the aspects set out in section 16 of the Bill under pain of committing an offence.

In accordance with recommendations of the Whincup and NCAC reports special provision is being proposed for safety of motor vehicles. Unlike other goods provided for consumers, faults in motor vehicles may affect other than the purchaser, if for instance, they cause an accident.

The need, therefore, for a high level of mechanical efficiency and roadworthiness in all motor vehicles sold for ordinary road use is vital. In addition to the safety angle there is the consideration that unless the buyer has some protection by warranty—and here I use the word in its common usage—the remedying of defects in a car following purchase can be very expensive indeed for the buyer. The implied conditions and warranties as provided for in section 10 which are involved in any sale of goods would of course apply to sales of cars for ordinary road use. In addition, however, section 13 requires that where the vehicle is for ordinary road use a certificate of roadworthiness, to form part of a warranty that the vehicle is indeed fit for road use, shall be given by every motor dealer at the time of delivery of the vehicle.

The Minister will be empowered to specify the minimum contents of the certificate. This requirement should present no great difficulties to and indeed should facilitate the business of, reputable car dealers. It will, moreover, provide the buyer with much needed protection from the hazards he faces when tempted to buy from certain other kinds of car dealer. Where the individual decides to sell his car privately—as many do—section 13 (2) of the Bill provides that there is an implied condition that at the time of delivery the car is free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public except where there is a "fair and reasonable" written agreement that the vehicle is not for use in the condition in which it is intended to be delivered to the buyer.

There may be those who would assert that this requirement bears hard on the person who wishes to sell his car privately. To them I would say that we have to take account of the greater good of the greater number. Indeed, I must acknowledge that I myself was greatly impressed by and indeed would have a preference for the proposal in the Consumer Protection Bill which would have required the private seller, in the same way as the dealer, to give a certificate of roadworthiness. However, I have opted for the present proposal in response to very strong representations that the requirement of a certificate of roadworthiness on the ordinary person selling a car once in a few years—or indeed only once in a lifetime—would give rise to serious difficulties.

Another innovation provided for under section 13 (6) is the extension of the right of warranty against the seller to any person using the car with the owner's consent. There are those who might argue that this represents a serious stretching of the concept of privity of contract but, whatever the theoretical considerations involved, a pragmatic approach is called for when dealing with a product which if defective can constitute a grave personal and public hazard. Of particular relevance too to car owners and buyers are the provisions in section 12 under which any undertakings given by a seller as to future supply of spare parts and availability of servicing—sometimes given lightly as a selling device—may now be given the status of a warranty and can therefore be actively pursued in the civil courts by an aggrieved purchaser.

The new provisions contained in Part II in relation to the sale of goods are applied also as appropriate in Part III of the Bill to hire-purchase transactions. The reason is that hire-purchase transactions, although not sales in the legal sense, are a means by which consumer goods are acquired by consumers who are just as much entitled to protection as direct purchasers.

Similarly Part IV extends the new provision into the area of services where the consumer needs protection just as if he were buying goods. Nowadays, however, there is no reasonable basis on which suppliers of services should be exempt from the implied conditions and warranties as to the quality of the service as are obligatory on a seller of goods. Indeed, one could argue that the need for adequate protection for a consumer is all the greater in the case of a service because in a sale of goods the buyer can at least see and examine a given product. However, this is not generally the case with a service. Where the latter is involved a buyer may well be purchasing an expertise about which he may know very little unless he happens to have a degree of technical or specialised knowledge that the average person does not have. The quality of services is more difficult to define than that of goods, but I think sections 36 and 37 go as far as possible in this regard. These provisions apply to all suppliers of services in their contractual relationships. In other words the term "services" in this context extends to all those areas in which the consumer today spends much of his disposable income on travel, leisure, holidays, personal requisites, house repairs and so forth.

The Bill does not however seek to deal with the sort of negligence generally in the area of services except to the extent that this would be comprehended by the implied terms in contract now being provided.

As to Part V of the Bill, common Law contains many mysteries for the ordinary person in the area of misrepresentation. I will not go into the details of this here except to confirm that the purpose of sections 40 to 43 of the Bill are, firstly, to provide for the rights of a buyer where he has been led into accepting a contract by misrepresentation even if it was negligent or innocent; and, secondly, in the interests of equity to enable the courts to maintain a contract, instead of setting it aside, and award damages, keeping in mind the nature of the misrepresentations and the loss that would be caused to the parties by upholding or setting aside the contract.

Part VI of the Bill deals with various ancillary matters which could not readily be classified with the other parts. The provisions about unsolicited goods and directory entries are very necessary. My Department have been receiving a good many complaints over the last year or two about firms soliciting payment for entries in a directory which does not seem to exist. I will not go into the need for the other provisions in this part as they speak for themselves.

To conclude, it might be said that this Bill is about restoring people's rights in the marketplace, rights which, since the enactment of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, have correspondingly diminished, as the marketplace itself has expanded in form, scale, complexity and sophistication.

As I said at the beginning, I see the Bill as one about which there should be general agreement as to its scope and provisions, one which is of far-reaching importance but one which from a legal viewpoint is very technical and complex. For these reasons I am, I repeat, anxious that we should approach our deliberations on the Bill in a co-operative manner in the interests, if possible, of making the Bill an even better one than I believe it to be. It is therefore with great pleasure that I recommend the Bill to Dáil Éireann for favourable consideration.

I welcome this Bill which, as the Minister of State has said, is a very comprehensive proposal. I go along with her in her sentiments expressed at the end of her statement that we should approach this in a spirit of co-operation since we all know there is no opposition from any side of the House with regard to the broad provisions outlined in this Bill. As the Minister has said, it is a very comprehensive Bill which will have far-reaching effects for consumers, producers, manufacturers and suppliers.

In essence, this is not a new Bill. The Minister of State did say a Bill was published in May 1977 by her predecessor, Deputy Bruton. Since the Minister of State assumed office I have been inquiring from time to time as to what is happening to the Consumer Protection Bill, 1977. I recall that in February of this year I was told in reply to a parliamentary question that the delay in producing a Consumer Protection Bill was due to the fact that on scrutiny she had discovered that some major redrafting was necessary. I was surprised at the time because I felt that Deputy Bruton's Bill was a very comprehensive measure. However, I was hopeful from what the Minister of State said at the time that we might get something which was even more comprehensive and all-embracing. But in the meantime nothing happened. On 1 November this party published the Consumer Protection Bill, 1978, as a Private Members' Bill. This, in effect, was again the 1977 Consumer Protection Bill. All I can say is that this stung the Minister of State into action and last week we were presented with this Bill, the Consumer Protection Bill under a different title. The Bill now being discussed is, broadly speaking, what was published in 1977. In fact, except for a few minor changes, it is one and the same Bill.

Indeed, I commend the Minister of State for the good sense she has shown and expressed in adopting our Bill. In doing so, she has admitted graciously that she found it difficult on examination of our Bill to do much better, no matter how long or what delay was involved in scrutinising or examining it. The major re-drafting referred to amounts, it is obvious, to a few minor changes. A change of Title is one. Secondly, as far as I can recall, there are two additional sections, largely administrative, one dealing with consultation with the Minister for Finance and the other consequential on the passing of the Consumer Information Bill which concerns the director of consumer affairs. The third change is, as the Minister pointed out, concerned with dealing in cars through private sales.

I fully sympathise with the Minister in what confronted her because it would seem from the delay—I am just assuming this; it is the only reasonable assumption to which I can come—that she must have had difficulty in convincing some of her colleagues that this Bill should be published as it was and without any major changes. I am glad it is now published and I am grateful to find it is published in practically the same form in which it was drafted by the Coalition Government. There are no major changes. The effort to camouflage the similarity between the two Bills is, in my view, rather childish. I have compared the two. Section 32 of the Bill before the House was word for word section 33 in our Bill. Section 33 in this Bill was section 34 and 34 was section 35. Section 35 in this Bill was section 32 in our Bill. In other words, we have sections entered in a different juxtaposition in an effort to camouflage the similarity between the two Bills.

Having said that, I am delighted to welcome the Bill. This is a noncontroversial area but, as the Minister said, it is a very complex, technical, legalistic area. I am grateful to the Minister for her offer to compromise and make changes on Committee Stage if, through consultation and debate, it is found necessary to amend the Bill and improve it for the benefit of the consumer. I would hope we, on this side, would be able to offer some suggestions, albeit minor suggestions, to improve the Bill.

The Bill has been referred to as a shoppers' charter for the protection of the consumer. While I do not want to make an issue of the change of Title I think dropping the word "protection" was a mistake. It will not have any serious consequences because, hopefully, consumers will realise what the Bill is about, but the word "protection" carries certain connotations. It implies, not necessarily that the consumer is being attacked, but that he could possibly be ill-treated or misled resulting in loss or damage. However, I think the indications are quite correct because, when one reads the Bill, there is no doubt left as to the fact that the Bill is protective in the legal sense. The Bill leans very heavily on the side of the consumer. It is pro the consumer. Now, being pro the consumer does not mean that it is antitrader, anti-supplier, anti-manufacturer. What we are dealing with here are malpractices in business operated by a very, very small minority of traders or manufacturers.

We all know the vast majority of business men and women are people of the highest integrity and honesty. If they were not they would not survive in business. The vast majority must and should be concerned about the malpractices among some of their colleagues, malpractices which bring business in certain areas into disrepute. This small minority is one without which both the business community and the consumer can get on very well. I would hope that small minority, towards whom some sections of this Bill are directed, would be forced as a result of this Bill in doing one of two things, either mending their ways or getting out of business.

That small minority, and I would emphasise this, may be involved in producing shoddy goods, in producing guarantees and warranties which through the medium of different clauses relieve them of their responsibilities. The Minister referred at length to exclusion clauses, clauses which absolve people of responsibilities which, in all equity, they should be compelled to accept.

Some of the provisions of the Bill will, hopefully, get rid of what could be called rip-off merchants whose sole aim and ambition in life is the quick buck. If this Bill succeeds in bringing this small minority to heel, the Minister, the Government and the House will have done a good day's work on behalf of our consumers.

The vast majority of traders, manufacturers and suppliers need not have any worries with regard to the provisions incorporated in this legislation. In fact, I will be surprised if the House did not give their unreserved co-operation in seeing to it that the provisions of the Bill would be implemented, adhered to and lived up to. Indeed, developing this point a little further, the idea that the consumer and the supplier should have a confrontation is paradoxical in the sense that the supplier or the manufacturer is in business to provide a service and in so doing hopefully to make a profit. Any businessman will say that a happy customer, a satisfied customer, is a good customer in the sense that he will return to do business with the retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer. The advantages in co-operation between the manufacturer and the consumer far outweigh anything that would accrue from confrontation or suspicion or any kind of defensive play that might exist between both sides. Any good trader will say that the satisfaction of a customer is his main objective.

The Minister has told us that the Bill updates the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. In fact, it does a major surgical job on that Act which was sufficient to meet the needs 80 years ago. It has been recognised by all that the provisions of that Act are no longer sufficient to meet the needs and demands of today as far as trading and purchasing are concerned. Changes are necessary through increased abundance and complexity of goods and services afforded to the consumer. While there are certain advantages in abundance of goods and so on, the consumer is no longer able to fulfil the role of what was called the balancing factor. The Minister referred to this. Market conditions have changed and, due to a variety of things, the consumer no longer finds himself, or herself, an equal partner in the contractual sense. Changes like new materials, new methods of manufacture, development of means of communication, new methods of retailing and very sophisticated methods of advertising have led to increased supply and demand. The consumer is no longer an individual purchaser in a small local market. He is now a small fish in a big pool, a unit in a mass market.

Consumers now are the target of advertising campaigns where very sophisticated techniques are used to convince him that he should purchase certain items. These factors have evolved in recent years and are accelerating at an alarming rate. What is not new is the long established fact—long before the sophisticated techniques of today came into vogue—that consumers need protection. It has been recognised for many years that consumers have many rights. It is generally accepted that they fall under five broad basic headings: the right to protection of health and safety, the right to protection of economic interests, the right to redress, the right to information and education and the right to representation which, in effect, means the right to be heard.

One might justifiably inquire, having read through that list of rights, why the consumer should be conferred with such rights. It is also accepted that the answer to that question lies in history. Indeed, the history of economic and social thinking bears the imprint of suspicion of dealing and the desire to protect the consumer. This is not new by any means. Recently I came across a reference to a statement by a famous individual, Plato, who operated as far back as 350 B.C. In one of his famous works, he stated that merchants must be compelled to remain within the city for ten days following a sale and during this time a purchaser who is informed of the seller's address may have a sale cancelled. The only comment I wish to make on that statement is that Plato would have made an admirable Director of Consumer Affairs or Minister of State. Even 23 centuries later consumers here have not the rights which Plato said should be conferred on the people of his day in relation to door to door selling or sales. At last this Bill seeks to catch up with Plato.

I admit that times have changed and that consumers are now faced with a bewildering amount of products. Consumers have now a vast choice of products and are bewildered in the sense that there are so many price tags, bewildering in the sense that we have not unit pricing in order to compare prices of the same commodity in different packagings. The consumer is confused, bewildered and frustrated at the end of the day. There is also a diminution of the consumer's rights because of the unequal contest between him and the producer. The consumer cannot understand many aspects of sales techniques and ultimately he is the loser.

There is one aspect of consumption where even more basic changes have taken place. We all know about price wars and we witnessed them here quite recently. However, it is generally accepted that price wars in the more advanced countries have been abandoned and replaced by a much more subtle means of drawing the attention of the consumer to sales and services. It has been suggested that price wars have been replaced by what is known as "new product" wars. This is a subtle operation. Where manufacturers have a new product on which they hope to make a profit they plough back that profit into research laboratories that, in turn, produce a newer product and the whole cycle is repeated.

Having regard to the major advances in our time and our eminently forward-looking society, one would imagine it should be possible to produce a durable consumer product. The reality is that we are producing increasingly less durable goods and the reason is that some sections of society are persuading consumers that social status is measured by the frequency with which people can purchase and replace items; for example, the replacement of a car every nine, 12 or 18 months, the replacement of television sets, stereo equipment and so on. All of these products are being shoved down our throats and people are being persuaded that their status depends on the number of times they can replace consumer items.

Recently I came across a reference in connection with this matter. Some time during the First World War President Roosevelt said, "The spend, spend, spend mentality results in thrift becoming a dirty word". It seems to me that this is even more true today. Thrift has become a dirty word because of pressures by highly sophisticated and psychological advertising campaigns and sales techniques, by social pressures and by a weakness in human nature to keep up with the Joneses. All of this leads to the production of less durable goods because the manufacturing industries see this as an opportunity to keep producing such goods. I presume the mathematical term "infinity" comes in here and we may reach the stage where a product will not be durable at all. It appears this is what is happening. The paradox is that society seems to be demanding this even though it has come about by pressure from people highly skilled in the arts of persuasion.

As I have said, there was a time when the consumer could go into the marketplace on equal terms with the supplier but that is not the position now. The supplier can avail of the advice and expertise of consultants and experts in highly technical fields and the consumer has to face him possibly with no knowledge at all about the product, or what is even worse, with misleading information with regard to the product he is about to purchase.

In many instances when a person makes what turns out to be a foolish purchase we castigate him for being careless. We say that the person did not take enough care and did not listen to warnings. Sometimes these people are referred to as careless consumers. To help these so-called careless consumers to obtain redress they must be provided with the means of having the wrong in question righted. If we do not do that we are condoning a situation where certain members of society—many of them operating from a privileged position—exploit the weaknesses of others who are in a less privileged position. This attitude is wrong and should not be allowed to prevail. The Bill will go a long way towards righting that wrong. All obstacles which prevent consumers from getting a fair deal must be removed. In many cases these obstacles are not due to a lack of regulations or laws. Many of the difficulties involved seem to be in implementing and applying the regulations and laws. For example, even after this Bill has been passed there will be the practical difficulty of a purchaser seeking redress for faulty goods. The general attitude of a purchaser in such a situation is that he has been caught out and does not want to seek redress because of the cost involved. While that may be a pragmatic approach to the problem, it means that the producer can continue to produce inferior goods without running the risk of prosecution.

Another difficulty with regard to implementing existing legislation is the pressure from vested interests. By its nature, consumer legislation places restrictions on somebody. Therefore, the suggestion that new consumer legislation is being introduced means that it will face a strong industrial lobby. We have had experience of this lobby. If one is to judge the reaction to the furore which greeted the order made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1970, one can expect a certain amount of pressure to be applied in regard to the proposals in the Bill. It took three years to get an order implemented under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1970, as a result of pressures of this nature. In this regard the American experience comes to mind. The famous Ralph Nader was denounced and castigated by the industrial lobby. When American society discovered that their champion was doing something worthwhile the opposition backfired. The result was that Nader's campaign was very successful and cost industrialists a great amount of money.

Industrialists are facing present-day trading conditions in many respects. They are rising to the challenge by the introduction of new technology and are availing of new marketing techniques. Radical advances have been made in many sections of industry. The strange thing is that industry has given little thought to its relationship with consumers, which may be due to the lack of an organised consumer voice. Producers will tell you that they have close contact with the consumer because the consumer eventually purchases their products. They will tell you that knowing what the consumer wants is an integral part of their marketing strategy and advertising campaigns, but we all know that there are many examples where this is not so.

The question that should be asked at this stage is: will the manufacturing sector wait to be shocked into some kind of response to the organised consumer voice? Massive advertising budgets are provided for the promotion of new projects because special techniques have to be applied to get the message to the consumer. I wonder if some of that money could be channelled into the building up of a closer relationship with consumers. Such expenditure could be regarded as market research or advertising revenue. The consumer organisations would not be found wanting in reacting favourably to this, if they felt they were being taken into the confidence of the manufacturer and that there were no strings attached to any money they might get. After all, consumer organisations are voluntary bodies solely dependent on voluntary subscriptions.

This might be a good time to ask the Minister of State to comment on the possibility of providing some assistance to the consumer organisations in the form of a subsidy. The Minister will recall that, when we both took part in a radio programme some six months ago, she intimated to me that she was considering the provision of a subsidy for consumer organisations, but for some strange reason nothing has been heard of the said subsidy since. Will the Minister of State consider producing something along with this Bill which would show an additional worthwhile commitment to the consumer?

Another area which always strikes me as being lacking in its interest in and commitment to the idea of "consumerism" is the trade unions. Trade unionists as individuals are all consumers who I am sure have a deep interest in the prices of commodities, quality of products and so on; but as a highly organised group, they have as yet at least shown little interest in consumer protection, in quality control or in consumer legislation. These matters deeply affect trade unionists in their places of work. A company producing a commodity of an inferior standard is likely to go out of business, and it is only at this stage that the unions get interested in what went wrong. They discover that a company could not sell their products because a competitor produced a better product at a lower price. At that stage the unions wonder what the quality control department was doing during all this time. Legislation affecting the producer, possibly involving extra expenditure, if he is to live up to the conditions of this Bill, for example, would also affect the individual worker who is more than likely a trade unionist. Any extra expenditure incurred by the producer will be passed on to the trade unionist as a consumer.

I have always been surprised at the reluctance of successive Governments to produce what is now being belatedly produced here. Ultimately, the consumer will pay for consumer legislation. The consumer will pay for consumer protection and for consumer information. This is a fact of life, and I do not see why this kind of legislation could not have been produced before now.

I will refer briefly to the provisions of the Bill, which, as the Minister of State is aware, are very far-reaching. I am glad that the Minister, in her very full statement on the Bill, went into some detail. I do not propose to go into detail at this stage because, as the Minister said, we can tease out the different sections on Committee Stage and hopefully we will come up with some reasoned and reasonable improvements where possible.

The section dealing with motor vehicles is very badly needed if for no other reason than that the consequences of purchasing a faulty car can be very far reaching in the sense that they affect not only the purchaser but other people. The provision extending redress to people using that car with the owner's consent is a very worthwhile measure which will improve the rights of purchasers in this area. While I agree that there are difficulties in relation to producing some kind of document or written undertaking that a car is fit for the job it is meant to do, it is a pity that the provisions concerning the private sale of a car through an individual who is not a trader have been deleted. There are people, of whom the Minister must be aware, who as private individuals sell cars more than once in a lifetime. Indeed, some of them might sell them once a month. They are not regarded as traders, but they are in this business which may be peripheral to their normal bread and butter profession, and they are making money in it. I hope we will discuss this in detail on Committee Stage. I will not go into it further now.

The position within finance houses has been updated and clarified. This is a very worthwhile and long overdue approach. On the question of services this is a completely new field for us here in that for the first time we have been brought into line with modern thinking. There are difficulties, as the Minister has stated, in defining exactly what a good service is but the provisions of the Bill are far-reaching enough to ensure that consumers will, in future, be provided with a service which will be up to an acceptable standard at least.

Exclusion clauses have been mentioned at length by the Minister and the provisions in the Bill go very far to regularise the position in this regard. Let me say that exclusion clauses have been the scourge of consumers for many years. We had the situation where the supplier was relieved of all liabilities in relation to his produce through an exclusion clause which normally was found written, in illegible writing because of its size, on page 5 of a long meandering contract which nobody could understand. This kind of thing went on and it is high time that it was stopped. I am glad the Minister has seen fit to include this as a provision in the Bill.

Hire purchase is another large area where the provisions of the Bill apply. I have here an article from the National Prices Commission occasional paper number 28 in relation to the Irish market for Irish electrical goods. I have not had time to look at it this morning but I notice that there have been a diminishing number of hire purchase agreements signed and that is something which we should be glad about. From 1965 to 1975 the number of agreements signed with finance companies dropped from 4,965 to 2,775; the number of agreements signed with trading companies in 1965 was 60,000 and the number in 1975 was 38,600. Again this is an appreciable drop. Presumably this is because of the facility of personal loans from other institutions where tax allowances are made on this type of transaction. At least I hope that is the reason for it.

Hire purchase is not a new form of trading. The description of it I have read somewhere is that it is persuasion by a person whom one never saw before to sign an agreement which one never read for purchase of a commodity which one does not need with money which one does not have. That definition of hire purchase was probably an accurate one. The position a person found himself in was that of a hirer. He did not own the goods until he had paid the last instalment. The provision in the Bill will ensure that the person purchasing goods on hire purchase will have exactly the same rights as the person transacting a cash sale. It is long overdue and will alleviate that hardship on people who must, by virtue of their circumstances, get involved in these agreements. Let me say that in most cases these people find themselves in a financial straitjacket. They are the most vulnerable section in our society. They are not in a position to seek advice in many cases or to know what their rights are and they are being exploited. The door-to-door salesman type of operation is the greatest scourge which operates in this area, the area of unsolicited goods. While Plato did not use the term "cooling-off period" that is exactly what he had in mind when he wrote his major work Laws. The section dealing with unsolicited goods and directory entries is again, a major step forward and something which the consumers can avail of to their advantage.

I am glad this Bill is now published by the Government. We have the position where there are two Bills now on the Order Paper, the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill, 1978, and the Consumer Protection Bill, 1978, which is a Private Members' Bill. Broadly speaking they are one and the same Bill. Because of that I feel that the Minister need not have any worries about any controversy or opposition in so far as we on this side of the House are concerned. I fully accept the provisions in the Bill and I also welcome and accept the offer made by the Minister that she will, on Committee Stage, discuss reasoned amendments, and hopefully, through co-operation, we will end up with a Bill which is to the credit of this House and to the advantage of consumers.

I would finally say that we will not be found wanting in the expeditious passing of this Bill through the House.

I know that Deputy Lemass is anxious to get in during the morning and I do not propose to speak at any great length.

It is a pity that the original title of the Bill, the Consumer Protection Bill, was not retained. I know that Deputies O'Toole and Bruton indulged in a bit of gentle upstaging and urged on the Minister of State the publication of this Bill but nevertheless I would have preferred to see the general titles of the legislation retained and I think it was a pity they were not. However, it is better we should have this legislation late than never because the House should bear in mind in relation to this legislation that it is now almost four years since the report was made by the National Consumer Advisory Council to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. When that report was made in December 1974 it was warmly welcomed by consumer interests and the politicians who thought it was an excellent report. We were anxious to see the legislation but it shows how slow it is to get legislation through both Houses of the Oireachtas that only now we have this Bill. The quicker it is enacted the better for consumers. We hope to see it coming into effect early next year.

Those of us who have had any contact with the old 1893 Sales of Goods Act welcome the manner in which this Bill has been laid out and the coherence with which it deals with the different issues. During the past ten years in Leinster House I have been surprised at the number of Bills which have come before us and which have either been shoddily presented or found to be gravely wanting technically even in the course of an ordinary Second Stage debate. This Bill is one of the best presented to the Dáil and I compliment the Minister and her predecessor, Deputy John Bruton, for the initial work on the Bill, the staff of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy and the parliamentary draftsman. It is an excellent Bill and it will be of great benefit not only to the unfortunate law students in the country who will have to get working on it for next year but also for the many people who will be called on to interpret it in the law courts.

I am glad, in regard to services, that we have had the extension of "implied rights and duties" to "services" because in the past this grey area of general services to the consumer has been one where there has been enormous litigation, confusion and complaint. The politicians are frequently approached by constituents who have reasonable grounds for complaint particularly in relation to services. That is the area of growth in terms of consumer involvement in the community.

Many people now like to travel during their leisure time. They want, perhaps, to go to a country seaside resort in summer or go abroad on a winter holiday and they frequently deal with travel agents. Very often the contract under the old legislation would not stand up to argument between the unfortunate holidaymaker and some fly-by-night holiday travel arranger. That area in recent years has been one of massive litigation. I am disappointed that it has not extended more emphatically to the tremendous growth in motor vehicle repairs where many of us are involved from time to time. Although the Bill applies to this the Minister did not have much to say about it this morning. In regard to motor vehicle repairs the Irish consumer is very often taken for a short, dangerous and a most expensive ride. If one goes to any motor garage in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain particularly and prices the cost of spare parts, leaving aside the differential in VAT, one finds that the cost of getting repairs done to motor vehicles in Ireland is much greater, although this is something which the Irish consumer has been very loath to question. He has accepted very shoddy work and enormous overcharging in many areas. Irish consumers have frequently had cars given back to them in a dangerous condition. I am very critical of this area. It is one which the Minister of State might elaborate on although I am quite certain that under this Bill the situation will improve.

I am delighted that the Bill deals emphatically with the question of entries into non-existent directories and the entry into directories which exist but whose circulation is virtually non-existent so that in effect it is a con job. It is amazing how gullible business people will flash a cheque for £10, £15 or £50 to those so-called directory compilers with profuse thanks for having their illustrious names included in a directory which might have a circulation of 1,500, 500 or a couple of hundred and those copies may languish in the back of some person's car for 20 years while he has meanwhile had an expensive holiday abroad on the proceeds of those cheques. There have been at least two cases here where the directories did not even exist and we have also had cases where the directories had a circulation which would not attract a rabbit out of a warren in terms of advertising value.

Consumers should be more vigilant, critical and reluctant to buy and more prepared to exercise the discipline of thorough and absolute examination of goods and services before they proceed to purchase. I get an average of two or three consumer complaints a month, usually on the telephone, about such matters. They are so annoyed about what they have experienced that they do not propose to take it much further except that they will not be caught again. It is amazing how gullible people can be and it is amazing the number of people who part quite readily with money for shoddy goods and shoddy services.

With regard to the application of the Bill to hotels and restaurants where contracts are signed by clients looking for particular services, there are some hotels in the country of so-called grading where at this time of the year one is more likely to get pneumonia or to finish up with a severe dose of either hepatitis or food poisoning, which is far more dangerous, than getting value for money.

With the tremendous explosion in tourism in the last 18 months or so and the likelihood of it continuing into next year there is the danger that this winter there will be some shoddy services made available to tourists by some chancers in the trade. One should warn against this. I am thinking of those who will, over the coming winter, manufacture some allegedly Irish souvenirs and will flog them to tourists at very expensive prices. I am concerned particularly about this because I have received quite a few complaints in this regard because I represent Dún Laoghaire, through which many tourists pass. Many of these tourists are extremely critical of the quality of meals and overnight accommodation for which they pay very heavy prices. Indeed, hotel prices here are quite high. The cost of having an ordinary meal in an ordinary hotel or outside restaurant is exceptionally high. But people accept uncritically appallingly bad service at that level. Certainly we feel greater vigilance should be exercised in that area.

I have referred to a number of areas which are at present of particular importance. It has been correctly pointed out that this Bill will have to cater for a changing lifestyle of consumer in the years ahead. While it is very difficult to predict lifestyles in terms of ten or 15 years in the application of this Bill certainly it will have major implications in the years ahead.

Perhaps the Minister of State might refer as well to the question of pyramid selling in so far as it may have an application under this Bill. This practice has continued in this country. With vigilance on the part of newspapers, the exposure given to some rip-off pyramid selling operations here, and indeed by some politicans who correctly raised the matter in this House, we thought that would have been the end of the affair. Unfortunately, in the past year a couple of new companies have emerged and old ones have re-surfaced. Certainly I have received at least two complaints of unfortunate constituents being litterly ripped off to the tune of £300 and £400 each, with no redress. I would be interested to hear the views of the Minister in the context of people signing contracts and services as applicable under this Bill.

The Minister has said quite correctly that this Bill is a complex one; she described it quite rightly as a lawyers' Bill. In that context we need a consumer reference handbook. We have now the Consumer Information Bill and this Bill. There is an urgent need, not alone for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas—who could usefully do with it in terms of being obliged to advise constituents from time to time—but for the general public, for an officially-sponsored handy reference book, or even a simple guide, giving consumers readily available information regarding their statutory rights and entitlements. Indeed it might well go further. Such a handbook might deal also with the means open to a consumer for redress in relation to complaints. It is not merely sufficient that we enact legislation; the legislation must be understood by consumers at large and I do not think it will be possible for the Consumers' Association of Ireland to undertake this task. The printing of popular summaries of legislation has become extremely expensive but nonetheless the Minister should do this. We will forgive her if she puts a substantial foreword to it herself as Ministers have been wont to do in the past. On that basis I would ask as well that there be some leaflets published in relation both to the Consumer Information Bill and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill. I suggest that in the official sense we need official information from the Department, enhancing direct consumer contact with the Department.

The Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy is an awe-inspiring, semi-autonomous branch of the Establishment in Kildare Street with very little reference to the ordinary consumer. Most people have very little contact with that Department. It would be valuable in the same way as have been the Prices Line and the National Prices Commission which have had considerable public impact in that regard. Also in order to ensure that this Bill be fully understood additional assistance should be given to the Consumers' Association of Ireland. I would favour a type of £ for £ grant-in-aid, even if it is of a small amount, of perhaps of a few thousand pounds a year initially. If the State provides for, say, £5,000 to any voluntary organisation it should be within that organisation's competence then to raise another £5,000. I would strongly support the granting of assistance to the Consumers' Association of Ireland, first, in relation to their ordinary administration and, second in relation to publications. Those are the two expensive areas which can be quite clearly segregated but which can be also of great benefit.

The Bill has implications also in the context of roadside trading. I am very anxious to hear from the Minister when we will have that legislation introduced. I noticed that the other Minister of State at this Department, Deputy R. Burke, indicated on a number of occasions that such legislation is forthcoming. There are very few sitting days left in the Dáil between now and Christmas. This legislation becomes all the more urgent when one considers the massive splurge of roadside trading that will occur in the weeks running up to Christmas and the amount of shoddy rubbish consumers will buy in that period. It is amazing that people will buy even a freezer costing £150 from a roadside trader with not the slighest guarantee of contract of service or after-sales service. Many people are tempted to go for the soft option. There is an urgent need to curb that kind of rip-off roadside trading, a rip-off in the context of payment of VAT, of payment of commercial rates and in the context also of subsequent redress of a consumer who has been sold a shoddy commodity. Indeed it is a rip-off also in the context of the environment which is massively polluted by such traders on many occasions, who sell a lot of seconds, who sell a lot of material that does not pass through full quality manufacturers' control but who just flog it off on the basis that there is a gullible public likely to be travelling along the road.

I have only one crib about the Bill and it has to do with the alleged strong representations the Minister said she had received. She refers to it as follows in her speech:

I have opted for the present proposal in response to very strong representations that the requirement of a certificate of roadworthiness on the ordinary person selling a car once in a few years—or once in a lifetime—would give rise to serious difficulties.

It would be interesting to know who made the strong representations. There were not any representations made to me and I do not think Deputy O'Toole had any.

The serious point about this matter is that there are persons who have what on the surface might appear to be a perfectly good car. However, although the car may not be more than two or three years old, it has been in an accident and it has been repaired. As a result of the accident it may have sustained a cracked axle or the brake fluid components may have been damaged. I am afraid there are many people who are prepared to sell such cars or to offer them for sale privately in the hope that some sucker will be prepared to buy. As I have said, such a car may not be more than two or three years old but because of the accident damage it may be a lethal weapon on the roads.

Usually we hear a story of a Dublin car being sold in Galway or a Galway car being sold in Kerry, far from where the owner might be known. I am suggesting that in order to safeguard the purchaser a pro forma certificate of some kind should be attached to the tax book of the person selling the car and that there should be some form of words signed by the seller to the effect that the car has a fair and reasonable degree of roadworthiness.

Usually such people send their cars to garages to have them repaired. No doubt the garage will do an excellent check and an excellent job on such a car and the person will then sell it privately. Such a car could be lethal. Unlike the situation in such places as France, Austria, Sweden, we have a very loose system and I strongly advise the Minister to consider the matter carefully.

I presume that consumer credit contracts are covered as distinct from hire purchase contracts. Many people enter contracts on a budget and I wonder to what extent they will be covered in the Bill.

As I said, I am pleased the Bill has been introduced. The quicker it is enacted the better. It will be of immense benefit to ordinary consumers and its application should not cause any great trouble to retailers, wholesalers or manufacturers. Many of them will have to amend their notices quite rapidly but I do not think that will be too onerous a task.

I congratulate the Minister on having brought the Bill before us so speedily. We have been back in office only a little more than a year. Deputy O'Toole said the Coalition Government had brought in an identical Bill before the 1977 General Election. The information I have been given is that that Bill was introduced in a great hurry to fulfil a promise that it would have been brought before the House during the Coalition's term of office, but I understand that if it had gone through there would have been so many amendments that the entire Bill would have been lost—that it would have been a Bill of amendments.

As Deputy Desmond has said, the Bill before us is an excellent instrument which will give benefits to consumers that were long overdue. There are a few points of detail which I should like to bring to the Minister's notice. In most shops we find notices which state "no cash refund". They are in nearly every shop. If you find you have bought a faulty article most shops are happy to give you a credit note, but they will not refund your money no matter how faulty or bad the article was. I hope this Bill will ensure that people who complain about such purchases will be able to receive their money back. Why should bona fide purchasers of goods take credit notes which would mean having to return to the same shop from which they had bought the faulty article? Why should they have to buy something else which they do not need or want? If they do not use the credit note in a certain period it could run out of date and they would be at a complete loss.

I suggest the Minister would also look at the problem in relation to sales. At some sales shops describe some of their goods as seconds or as being slightly faulty. Ordinarily when one buys an article at a sale it is the same article as one could buy elsewhere, the only difference being the reduced price. In such circumstances, if one buys an article which turns out to be faulty one cannot go back and say "I do not want that. It is faulty. There is something wrong with it". Will the customer be entitled to a refund in these circumstances?

There is also the problem of very shoddy goods particularly in the children's toys market. Vast numbers of toys are imported particularly at Christmas time and people purchase them. The toys break before the season is over; they are in bits, and when the customer goes back to the shop he will be told that the children were too rough with the toy, that they bashed it around—which may not be the case. Toys should be made to last and give good service to the consumer. I would hope that even if found to be faulty after several weeks of use, or if they break, or are not of a good serviceable nature the customer would have redress against the retailer and be able to get a refund.

Some other areas are rather grey, as has been said. One of these is the dry cleaning business. Dry cleaners will not accept an article unless you are prepared to take a risk. There is an owner's risk clause involved. That is not good enough. If they are giving a dry cleaning service they should take some responsibility for the cleaning of an article. If something happens, if it is destroyed, if the job is not well done the customer should have some redress and not have to say that it was given in at owner's risk; the coat or dress is absolutely destroyed and the shop has only to say they are very sorry and return the destroyed article.

Will this Bill help the consumer who sends away money to a mail order firm abroad advertising goods through a newspaper and who hears nothing more about it? How will that situation be met? The legislators have been so long in bringing in a Bill of this nature that it has fallen to the good offices of people like Gay Byrne in his programme in recent years to help consumers. He has done a very good job and I should like to say to him that we hope to take over at least that part of his work and do it in this House.

I speak from a personal point of view as a consumer of household goods. I have to have repairs done to my house and have various tradesmen in to do jobs. I speak also on behalf of other householders who may find themselves in situations where repairs or services have not been completed to their satisfaction and who can get no redress even though they may have been left with half-finished extensions or badly installed plumbing. They cannot get the people concerned to complete the work. The average person who goes to a small contractor or tradesman to get a job done will hand over a good deal of the money before the job is finished, in some cases, the complete amount. If the job is not satisfactory or not properly finished or is faulty the tradesman or the builder cannot be got back to complete or remedy this. There is no way open to the customer. Many people have found themselves in a very difficult situation where they have paid out hundreds of pounds for a job which turns out to be completely unsatisfactory and they are left with half-finished work or work that is badly or improperly done and are unable to get satisfaction from the person employed to do the work.

I am also worried about manufactured goods that do not last. For instance you buy an electrical appliance, pay a lot of money for it and have it for perhaps two years. Something goes wrong with it and when you go to the manufacturer or to the place where you bought it you are told: "We are sorry but that is obsolete; it is not made any more. You cannot have it repaired". Is the consumer to go out and buy another new appliance and throw the old one out? This happens frequently. There should be some guarantee that a consumer will be able to obtain spare parts and get the article repaired for at least a certain number of years. If something costs a fair amount of money you expect to have it at least ten years or more. I find it very strange that in the case of electrical appliances such as vacuum cleaners, or fridges, after three or four years you will be told they have gone off the market and nothing can be done about them. I do not agree with that at all.

I do not know if the Bill will cover a situation where a person purchases a garment in a particular shop, takes it and pays for it and then goes down the street and sees an identical garment in another shop for perhaps £5 less. Nothing annoys a woman more than to pay for shoes or a dress and then see the same thing for considerably less money. Would she be able to go back to the original shop and say that the article was bad value, that she paid too much for it; that she can get the same article elsewhere for less? Will she be able to claim a refund of her money? I doubt it, but I wish to make that point.

People often find themselves in great difficulty in the holidays, travel and leisure areas. Some travel agents are very good and refund the money. In other cases people have to spend extra cash they did not intend to spend because they are let down by a travel agent—they find themselves abroad and unable to get certain accommodation because it is booked out when they arrive and have to go to a more expensive hotel. At that stage they can do nothing about it and have to pay. I hope in that kind of situation there will be some redress for the consumer.

These are the points I want to make. I am happy to see this Bill which I hope will give the consumer the freedom and sense of security that has been lacking for a long time, that at least one will be able to go into a shop with a little backup and without feeling one had better not ask for money back or say an article is faulty because the seller would think the customer mean or cranky. Instead, I hope that one can go in with a sense of being entitled to bring back a faulty article, something that has not gone through the dry cleaners in accordance with what is stated on the label if it does not conform with washing notices written on the article and it is found to shrink, become too short or too long. I hope even after a considerable time one will be entitled to go back to the seller and say: "It is not good value. It is not a satisfactory purchase and I would like my money back". We must get it across to people that they can go in and not accept a replacement if they do not want it, not get a credit note if they do not want it, but get their money back so that they can go elsewhere and buy something they need and want. Once again I congratulate the Minister. I am sure this Bill will get the support of everybody concerned in the House and that it will go through speedily.

I welcome this Bill. Any Bill that has been brought before this House to protect consumers and to give them greater freedom and rights is good legislation. Deputy Lemass congratulated the Minister of State on bringing this Bill speedily before this House. As the Minister of State said, this Bill is very much the same as the Bill brought before this House in May 1977 by the last Government; so it took a year and four months to bring in legislation that was already there. I do not see anything very speedy about that. Only last week a Private Members' Bill was placed before this House which was in essence the same as this Bill, and that action got a very quick response from the Government and forced them to bring in this legislation which seemed to be gathering dust in the pigeon-holes. Instead of complimenting the Minister of State for bringing in this Bill, I have to compliment my colleague for putting down a Private Members' Bill which forced this document through.

This is important legislation. Up to now the only protection for consumers was the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 which goes back so far that it is meaningless to a lot of people, and a number of retailers and suppliers circumvented that by issuing their own guarantee. I am glad that there are exclusion clauses now which remedy that malady. This Bill is neither pro-consumer nor anti-supplier. It is basically a bill of rights. Any legislation is only as good as it is effective. The Minister of State said that this is a complex, lawyers' Bill, which indeed worries me because to the ordinary person in the street the thought of legal complexities and of having to take legal action is very often discouraging. This is the second piece of consumer legislation. I hope we will get more of it and that we will have a comprehensive set of consumer legislation as simplified as possible.

We are talking about the rights of ordinary persons. We must be able to protect them in this House, and passing laws is not always enough. As a result of family law passed in this House a family court has been set up. Consideration should be given to the setting up of a consumer court to which consumers will have recourse. This is something which may initially be dealt with through the local authorities. When persons have grievances regarding something they have purchased, to whom do they turn? They may get some soft talk or misleading chat at the place where they purchased the goods, and when they walk out of the door they are not too sure of their rights. We must ensure that people who have grievances have a place to which they can bring them, and not merely an assurance that they have their rights. The Minister should look into what local authorities can do in this by setting up consumer information centres. This would not be a mammoth task. It would be the reasonable approach for local authorities to take, and they should be funded by the Minister of State's Department. Any expense incurred should be funded through the Department responsible for this type of legislation. It is only when we provide this type of constructive redress that we can say we are serious about the consumer. I ask the Minister of State to consider it seriously in conjunction with a free legal aid system for this area. The people requiring this type of aid in a lot of cases would not be able to meet the expense or would be afraid of undertaking any type of action because they feel they might not be successful and that the action could cost them money. We must set up the machinery to do this job. If we do not we are paying lip-service to the consumer about whom we are now professing great concern.

The Minister mentioned the power by order to impose a cooling-off period during which a customer may withdraw from a contract for goods or services which has been made with a salesman away from his place of business. This obviously refers to door-to-door selling. We should look at this in conjunction with HP agreements that may have been undertaken in a head office, because HP agreements, as consumers are invariably told, are legal documents and must be adhered to. There is a clause about a one-third clawback if the agreement is broken. There is a certain amount of pressure put on people, people who may just walk into a particular store to have a look around can find themselves caught up in the atmosphere because of the persuasiveness of a good salesman. They sign an agreement and then, when they go home and discuss it, they have second thoughts. But it is not always easy to break this kind of agreement and, if we are going to have cooling-off periods, they should not be confined to one particular aspect of trading, such as door-to-door or away from the business itself. That would not be satisfactory. I agree the bigger sins are committed in that area because of really high-powered salesmen operating.

I would ask the Minister to reconsider the whole area of contracts. People may be hasty in signing something or they may be persuasively influenced into buying some piece of equipment. Subsequently they may realise that they cannot afford it but, because of entering into an agreement, they are bound by their commitment. There should be a cooling-off period in regard to such agreements. Those entering into them should have two or three days in which to change their minds. That is important. It would take away the pressure and keep them from succumbing too easily. Very often, having succumbed to the glamour or the attractiveness of an article, they subsequently on reflection decide they have made a wrong decision and want to cancel the contract. A cooling-off period should be written into the Bill. If it is not there there will be a continuation of undesirable selling techniques. We are concerned with the consumer, with the person who is most vulnerable. We owe the consumer protection and a clause according this protection to the consumer must be enshrined in this Bill.

Guarantees have always been a bone of contention. When one buys some equipment and asks about service one is told there will be no problem, a man will be out within 24 hours. Everything is covered. Perhaps a day later the article has to be brought back. It is under guarantee but, when one calls to collect it, one is told there is a charge of £5 or £6. Naturally one is horrified. The explanation is the parts are guaranteed but a charge has to be made for labour and labour is very expensive. That is not good enough. To my way of thinking it is deception. A clause should be inserted covering guarantees of service. Section 12 provides:

The Minister may, after such consultation with such interested parties as he thinks proper, by order apply this section to any class of goods described in the order.

I believe there should be a firm type of guarantee; and even if that means building it into a particular price structure at the time of sale, so be it.

With regard to motor vehicles, there has always been a problem in regard to labour and parts and I am glad we are now building into this Bill some protection for consumers. The problem arises mainly in regard to second-hand cars. This is an area fraught with danger for the purchaser. Day after day people are being conned into buying cars in allegedly perfect mechanical working order to discover a few days later that they are in anything but perfect mechanical working order. They have no redress. There are sharks in this particular business and we must ensure that buyers have every guarantee of satisfaction. Buyers may take civil proceedings but these can be dicey. With every second-hand car sold there should be a certificate of roadworthiness. If subsequently a car is found to be not roadworthy then the buyer will have some redress. If we do not do that, we are in trouble. There is some protection with regard to new cars but not as much as I would wish.

The main trouble in relation to mechanical vehicles is in the second-hand area and this applies to a lot of other commodities that are sold second-hand. If a person is buying second-hand furniture, for instance, he should have a written document to state that it is free of woodworm, and in relation to the general condition of the article, so that he will at least have some redress. People are walked into buying things and only when they have paid the money do they discover the hitches, and they are left high and dry. People must be protected from this sort of thing and the lives of unscrupulous dealers should be made intolerable so that they will have to mend their ways.

A lot of inferior goods are imported, and some of these such as electrical goods can be dangerous. A lot of the imported electrical appliances would not stand up to the tests which Irish-made electrical appliances must undergo before they come on the market. Even if there are guarantees with foreign appliances, at the end of the day the consumer can get no satisfaction. If such imported appliances passed the tests which Irish-made appliances undergo I would consider that the consumer was getting a fair deal. The electrical trade here have set their own standards and if imported goods do not measure up to these standards they should not be allowed on the market. The electrical trade will not become a sort of protection society for their own goods, but they will ensure that foreign goods are safe. A speaker said that motor cars can have serious consequences for a number of people and the same applies to electrical appliances. It is important that standards are adhered to and this might eliminate a lot of the problems. The consumer would not then have the same complaints.

Deputy Desmond referred to roadside traders. We will have problems in curtailing the activities of roadside traders unless we put them out of business. To expect a good service from roadside traders is wishful thinking. They are birds of passage, here today and gone tomorrow. If we set up consumer advice centres people can be advised not to buy from roadside traders. That is the only way we can eliminate this problem.

I note that there will be joint liability between the finance houses and the contractors, but I also note that the Bill does not spell out what the liability will be on the part of the finance houses. The Bill says that

Where goods are sold to a buyer dealing as consumer and an agreement is entered into by the buyer with another person acting in the course of a business (in this section referred to as a finance house) for the repayment to the finance house of money paid by the finance house to the seller in respect of the price of the goods, the finance house shall be deemed to be a party to the sale and shall be jointly and severally answerable to the buyer for the fulfilment of the contract of sale.

If the contractor who has sold the goods goes out of business can he refer back to the finance house, or is there joint responsibility at all levels? That is not quite clear. I welcome the fact that responsibility is being put on the finance houses. They profit from lending money, and the onus should be on them to ensure that they are lending money to reputable people. From now on they cannot just lend money and wash their hands of it; they are jointly responsible with the contractor in relation to the use to which it is put. Therefore finance houses will now be more prudent in financing people. This is a further safeguard for the consumer. There should always be a reasonable risk where a person is making money and now there will be a risk in relation to the profits of the finance houses

The purpose of this Bill is to update legislation which was enacted in 1893. It is incredible that there has been no new legislation since then. That legislation was flexible, and that is probably why the consumer was protected to some degree. We have been very slow to bring in consumer legislation. In the context of the EEC we are probably the worst country in that respect. Now that we have realised that it is necessary to protect consumers we should commence educating them as to their rights. Consumers must be made aware of the fact that they are protected under this legislation and that they have a right to redress.

An important part of any legislation is that it should be understood by everybody. Consumers must be encouraged to question retailers when they make purchases and if they find an article to be inferior they should be aware of their rights under this legislation. They should be in a position to demand redress and not have to listen to glib talk from businessmen. I agree with the suggestion that we should consider establishing consumer advice centres in each local authority area and, as consumer laws develop, we should consider establishing consumer courts to ensure that consumers have easy access to our laws. In this connection we should consider granting free legal aid.

I do not cavil with this legislation which I consider to be a start on the road to ensuring that consumers are protected. That is important as we develop as a consumer society. People are under tremendous pressure because of the glamourising of advertisements and because they must withstand such pressures it is important that we provide the necessary protection for them. The United States is considered to be a consumer society and in recent years worthwhile legislation has been introduced there to protect consumers. For too long we dragged our heels in this regard but, now that we have made a start it is important that we concentrate our efforts on educating our people as to their rights. The situation should be examined annually and, where necessary, our legislation updated. There is no doubt that in advertisements people are encouraged to keep up with the Jones's and this puts great pressure on them.

This is desirable legislation which should prove of great assistance to the many people who are often talked into buying an item. However, if people are not made aware of their rights the legislation will be meaningless. We must make the public aware of it and provide the right structures for them to obtain their rights.

Is mian liomsa fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo agus táim cinnte go gcuirfidh lucht ceannaithe na tíre, agus go mór mhór na mná, fáilte roimh an mBille leis.

I welcome the Bill and I am sure all consumers do. I congratulate the Minister on her speech because in it she explained the terms of the Bill in simple language so that everybody can understand its provisions. The Minister of State, and those responsible for drafting this legislation, are to be congratulated on the way the Bill is structured. They have grouped the provisions in such a way that they are easy for people to understand. The Minister described this as being a very technical Bill but her speech was phrased in such a way that even teenagers could understand its provisions. It was very interesting to hear the background to the Bill. I am sure everybody will agree that legislation that was enacted 85 years ago has faded in the minds of our people. The Minister informed us that the many flaws which were shown up in the legislation in recent years have been rectified.

Other Members have referred to the fact that the scene has changed greatly since the original Act was introduced and that the right of consumers has diminished annually. The market place has extended to such a degree that it is nearly impossible to keep up with all the changes. The poor unfortunate consumer has been left bewildered amongst all the changes.

It has been said that this could be regarded as an anti-seller Bill which none of us agrees with. As a matter of fact it should be called a charter of rights for the consumer. It would not be needed at all if relationships between the buyers and the sellers were regulated.

There are many sections in the Bill that have been referred to by previous speakers. The section relating to credit notes has been dealt with very fully. It deals with the situation whereby the credit note had become the order of the day rather than giving a refund to an aggrieved customer. Everybody will be delighted that this can no longer be done. We are all delighted also that in relation to the purchase of goods through hire purchase firms all loopholes have been blocked. To date people did not know just where to turn if they bought faulty goods under a hire purchase agreement.

The section dealing with services such as holidays, house repairs and travel has also been dealt with very fully. Within the last six months or so this was brought very much to the fore when several people complained of treatment which they had got from a travel agent in this city.

In another section, the Minister has taken account of the position of the small retailer. It was also asked that we do something about the roadside traders and the fly-by-nights. That would be a very hard thing to do but the shopkeepers themselves have brought this to the notice of the Government and are seeking legislation against the roadside traders.

Deputy Eileen Lemass spoke at length on many of the problems that mothers face as regards the purchase of faulty clothes and faulty shoes and especially as regards returning faulty footwear. A person may have to wait for six months before a replacement is issued from the manufacturers. Often there are promises made to people, especially by dealers in electrical equipment, that parts will be available and that there is a back-up service but when the consumer asks for the back-up service or takes an article to be repaired it may not be repaired for six months. There should really be a time limit and the service should be given within a week or a fortnight or at the very most a month.

I agree with the speaker who said that consumers should be more vigilant. They should be more critical. They are too much afraid to complain. This Bill will give them far more courage to complain. It will be the means of seeing that far less goods of inferior quality will be marketed in our country. It will be a warning to manufacturers also that they will have to pull up their socks, that the consumer is becoming far more informed and that they will not get away with marketing inferior goods as they have done for so long.

I was amused to hear Deputy O'Brien saying that the Bill drafted by the Opposition was exactly the same as this Bill. If he was here when Deputy Lemass spoke he would have heard her say that their Bill was so riddled with loopholes that it would have needed an amendment for almost every section and that the Bill would have ended up more a Bill of amendments to the Bill than a Bill itself.

I am confident that when this Bill is debated section by section there will be very few amendments needed; there may not even be one amendment needed. Even though we have been criticised for taking 18 months to bring it in, it is much better to ensure that when one does bring in a Bill it is foolproof, rather than rushing to bring in a Bill that has very little thought behind it.

I was not in the House when Deputy O'Toole was speaking but I heard him on the intercommunications system and I am glad that he spoke so constructively and promised every co-operation. Even the very discussion of this subject will make consumers more conscious of their rights. I hope the media will give this Bill the publicity it deserves. It has been said that it is all very well to have this legislation on the books but our next step should be to get the terms of the legislation across to the consumer. The media and especially radio and television can play a large part here in publicising the rights of the consumer.

I welcome the Bill and I am sure the consumers of Ireland will be grateful to the Minister and to all who help to get this Bill a speedy passage through the House.

I, too, am very glad to welcome this Bill. It is true that it has been awaited with considerable impatience. The Minister of State at the commencement of her speech said that the last Minister for Industry and Commerce began work on this on 10 May 1974 although credit must be given to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Lalor, for instigating this in 1971.

There are a number of points with which I would like to deal. First of all, I am very gratified by the fact that larger numbers of people are using the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy to query what they consider are sharp practices where they run into them and to make inquiries where they have any doubts about a sale. In the very last page of the Minister's speech she said that her Department had been receiving a good many complaints over the last year or two about firms soliciting payments for entries in a directory which did not exist. The fact is that people now know that the best place to make complaints in relation to such matters is in the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy and this is to be encouraged.

The manner in which this Bill will be dealt with will be a measure of the maturity of this House where one side should not seek to score points off the other side. The 1977 Bill was an excellent one and full credit should go to the previous Government for preparing it. This Bill has been prepared with a little extra time, a little more carefully. There are certain slight changes in it, obviously on the advice of the officials in the Department who have had more time to consider some of the original provisions. I am quite certain that if the Coalition Government were returned a Bill would have been introduced almost identical to the one introduced today possibly with a few changes from the 1977 Bill. I believe when it comes to Committee Stage the discussion which will take place will be along the lines of why certain changes have taken place. I am sure Deputy O'Toole will see the reasonableness behind it.

Deputy O'Brien spoke about the certificate of roadworthiness for motor cars. This Bill states that a certificate of roadworthiness is necessary from any person dealing in cars. I recently sold my car privately to a motor dealer after I had it ten years. I did not trade it in. I would not be in a position to give a certificate of roadworthiness to the dealer because I would not know enough about the mechanics of that car. I believe I am in order.

The Deputy is perfectly in order but I wondered if it was ten years he said.

Yes, I had a car for ten years but I maintained it well. The motor dealer I sold it to has used it himself. Recently when I asked him how it was going he said it was going extremely well and he was very happy with it.

Somebody will be hurt by it in time.

If a man dealing in motor cars is using this car himself he is obviously satisfied that it is roadworthy. I would not sell a car which I knew to be in a dangerous condition. We are talking about a sum of £200 in this instance. The car could have been used just as profitably by him for spare parts although I would not like to be using the spare parts from the outside of a ten-year-old car. When Deputy O'Brien changed his car he traded it in but I decided I would do better by selling my car privately and getting a discount from the dealer on my new car. It is important to realise that once one sells a car to a dealer he has to provide a certificate of roadworthiness if he is selling it to somebody else. He is the man who is making his living by this and he is the person who is in a position to know if the car is safe. If I sell my car to Deputy O'Toole and he requires a certificate from me I will give him a fair and reasonable certificate. I am saying to him that it is up to him whether or not he puts it on the road. I am then covering myself against responsibility. If he wants to buy the car from me under those conditions——

I am taking a major risk.

It is up to the Deputy to get that car serviced. Why try to con Deputy O'Toole by telling him that this car is great, that it has not given me any trouble when I know I am selling him a packet of trouble? If he says to me that he wants a certificate from me I am covering myself if I say to him that I cannot stand over the roadworthiness of the car, that I do not know what will happen to it next week or next month, but that I will give him a fair and reasonable certificate. It is up to the Deputy what he does with it afterwards. He might want it for parts for another car of a similar make.

I believe when this matter is teased out on Committee Stage it will be realised that we will have to differentiate between the private individual and the car dealer. This is more a Committee Stage point than a Second Stage one. The section of the Bill dealing with this deserves study. The Minister referred to it in her speech this morning and said:

The Minister will be empowered to specify the minimum contents of the certificate. This requirement should present no great difficulties to and indeed should facilitate the business of, reputable car dealers. It will, moreover, provide the buyer with much needed protection from the hazards he faces when tempted to buy from certain other kinds of car dealer.

This is very important because we know there are people dealing in cars that many of us would like to see driven out of business. They are as bad as the roadside dealers. I suggest to the Minister that this is an aspect of car dealing which should be looked into. I do not mind genuine car mechanics who do a good job but there are too many back-street traders selling very dangerous cars. I would welcome motor vehicle testing but that really relates to another Department.

The Minister also said this morning:

Where the individual decides to sell his car privately—as many do—section 13 (2) provides that there is an implied condition that at the time of delivery the car is free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public except where there is a "fair and reasonable" written agreement that the vehicle is not for use in the condition in which it is intended to be delivered to the buyer.

I take that to mean that if I am selling my car to Deputy O'Toole and he is seeking a guarantee from me I can write him out that agreement. I am telling him that the car I am selling him is not, to the best of my knowledge, a fit car. He can take the car to his garage and have a mechanic look over it. If he is buying a car second-hand he will bring it to his garage or he will bring an expert with him who will know if the car is roadworthy. When I bought a second-hand car some time ago I brought a motor mechanic to examine the car to tell me whether or not he considered it was roadworthy. Those people are not always perfect. I had the AA examine a car some years ago and they discovered that there was a seal leaking which was repaired by the garage. I bought the car from a very reputable garage but within a few months I had a lot of headaches with it. One thing after another went. Even the AA could not spot them and they get expert engineers to look at the cars. At that time I paid seven guineas to the AA to have the car examined which would probably be about £14 now but it is well worth while doing this. When one is buying a second-hand car it is always better to have it checked by an expert although even then one does not know what will go wrong with it afterwards.

It would be unfair to penalise the private car owner who can do far better by selling privately than trading in his old car. All he gets is a discount on the car and the person he is buying the new car from not only gets that man's old car free but he is making money on the one he is selling despite the discount. This Bill underlines that we are not satisfied with the philosophy of "buyer beware". It is used frequently but it is a wrong philosophy.

In 1953 I did a training course with Marks and Spencer across the water and I was with them until 1959. Their policy in those days in relation to goods was way ahead of legislation. We were told that people should be given refunds or exchanges, whether the goods returned were in perfect or imperfect condition. Their policy was that arguments were not to be made, that the customer was to be given immediate satisfaction. Consequently people knew that they could buy in confidence and that if something was not right they could bring it back. Of course some people took advantage of this but the number was very small. It did not do any damage to Marks and Spencer; in fact their business increased and they did not even have to advertise. Public relations between them and their customers were excellent because the latter knew that they could get refunds or exchanges for goods purchased.

A good point about this Bill is that people will no longer be subjected to the business of goods not being exchanged. In the case of an article that develops faults after three months of purchase, it is not good enough to tell the purchaser that he will be allowed only a certain amount because he has had the use of the article for three months. It is certainly not good enough in the case of a radio or goods of a mechanical nature. Equally, if a person buys an overcoat and finds that the seams go after three or four months and if the item has not been abused he should be entitled to a full refund. I had a good experience in regard to this matter in Dublin some time ago and I do not mind naming the shop concerned. I bought a pair of shoes in Arnotts and when I returned to the shop with the shoes because they were not right they sent them back to the manufacturers. After a certain period had elapsed the manager gave me the option of a refund or another pair of shoes. This is a case of good public relations and they deserve a pat on the back for their behaviour. It is impossible for any factory to manufacture 100 per cent perfect merchandise. Therefore, stores should endeavour to examine the goods thoroughly when they receive them so that they can be sent back to the company if they are faulty before they reach the sales floor. This Bill is very dear to my heart.

I am not too happy with the position that exists with regard to the servicing of washing machines and perhaps the Minister could give us some information on the matter. If a fault develops in a washing machine six months or one year after purchase the customer may have to wait three months to have it serviced. In my case the position became so bad that I was obliged to contact Mr. Foley who has a consumer column in the Irish Independent—a very good column—to help me with regard to a washing machine that could not be serviced for three months. A housewife with three or four children has a lot of washing to do and it is costly to send it to a laundry. When people buy expensive machines they are entitled to better servicing. I have no intention of naming the company in my case. In any event I got another washing machine from another company and they gave excellent service——

It would be wise not to name outside firms, either in praise or otherwise.

I will just add that I got a very different kind of service from the second company. People would not mind paying a little more for prompt service for washing machines and other expensive items.

I should like the attention of the Minister to be drawn to the matter of fire and theft insurance for cars. For many years I paid part of my premium of £35 for insuring my car for fire and theft cover but the actual market value of the car was only about £200. If it had been stolen or had gone on fire that is all the insurance company would have paid. I think there should be an obligation on insurance people to tell their customers that as the value of the car diminishes they should reduce their cover accordingly. It is another case of "let the buyer beware".

Recently I spoke to a man who had a 1968 Rover and he was paying an enormous amount for fire and theft. The car was in an accident and it was a write-off but the insurance company offered him only £250 or £300 even though they had collected the premium during the years for fire and theft. Insurance companies are quick enough to tell people when their houses should be insured for a higher sum. They should be equally good at telling people what to do as their cars depreciate in value. The procedure adopted by insurance companies with regard to advising people on increasing insurance cover for their houses and the contents might be called sharp practice. Even if the contents of a house are insured against damage by fire or flooding, if the carpets are insured for £2,000 and if there is cover in respect of a television set and so on, the insurance man may come along and point out that the person has had eight years' use of the items and that the value had decreased. Insurance companies offer a pittance on claims for carpets, televisions and so on. If one had to refurnish one's home, the amount of money one would get from the insurance company would only be sufficient to furnish one room. These things should be built into the legislation.

I agree with those who said that we should amend legislation as we become more aware of the types of defects that exist. People are only looking for fair play. They do not mind paying money if they get value in return. People often come up against sharp practices and I can only describe some of the activities of very big companies as sharp practices. We have an obligation to try to protect consumers because we—and this could be called the quote of the week—are as average as anyone else. We all have wives and families to look after. We all go home and hear our wives complaining about something that has gone wrong but we tend to let our wives deal with such matters.

Increasing prices is another complaint.

It is amazing how difficult it is to get service nowadays. You may have to wait two or three months before you can get a chimney sweep. The Bill provides that people giving such services are responsible for seeing that the work is properly done. If a householder pays a lot of money to have his house decorated or to have repairs carried out, he is entitled to see that the repairs are done properly. If they are not done correctly he should have recourse to the law without too many complications. People should be encouraged to ring the Department with complaints about bad service and faulty goods.

There is a reference in the Minister's speech to credit purchases. The Minister said:

Section 14 of the Bill is intended to plug a loophole which at present sometimes leaves credit purchasers without any recourse where goods are faulty. The seller has been paid in full by the finance house and the latter have no interest except to recover the amount lent to the purchaser. Under this section the consumer will no longer be left in a vacuum between the two, as both will have joint and several liability.

This is a common complaint on the BBC television programme That's Life, which is produced by Esther Rantzen. Another excellent source for the consumer is Which magazine. I have been subscribing to that magazine since 1959. A common complaint in regard to hire purchase transactions is that the seller takes no further interest in the buyer because he has already been paid by the hire purchase company. I understand that many companies receive commissions from hire purchase companies on top of the profits which they have already made. What happens is that a hire purchase company may ask a motor dealer to deal with them for a percentage of the interest which they charge the buyer. People are being abused left, right and centre by such practices and I want to see them stamped out. The prices commission should interest themselves in that aspect of sharp practice.

Years ago the little shop on the corner could not do anything wrong because the customers always threatened to take their business elsewhere and word would travel fast. Nowadays we have large supermarkets with thousands of customers each week and a dozen complaints here or there do not make much difference to them.

Part V of the Bill relates to the rights of a buyer who has been led into accepting a contract by misrepresentation, even if it was negligent or innocent. There are many sharp-talking salesmen who can talk people into buying things which they do not want. Years ago we used to hear about the "switch" sale, that is, where goods would be advertised in a newspaper at a much lower price than that at which the advertiser would sell. The companies that advertised in this manner gave big incentives to their salesmen. People are entitled to protection against door-to-door sales. It can be shown in a court that a person has been talked into buying an article which he does not want. The courts are sympathetic towards people who fall down on hire purchase payments.

That is one of the reasons why two signatures are required on a hire purchase agreement. If the husband is the only wage earner, the wife may be smart-talked into buying something the husband might not be able to pay for. That sort thing must be watched.

I am very concerned about door-to-door salesmen. I do not want to be unfair, but to a certain extent they live by their wits and on the weaknesses of others. A person might have reduced his debt to almost nothing when these salesmen talk him into buying something else and he never gets out of debt.

I am very concerned about pyramid selling. One of our Sunday newspapers highlighted the operations of one who "cleaned out" people. As Deputy B. Desmond said, no sooner is one such firm closed down but another appears—maybe the same firm but under a different name. It does not matter how often people are alerted to the dangers of pyramid selling, they will still go after what they think are the easy few pounds. Often these people may have a nest egg of only £300 or £400 and these vultures relieve them of this money with promises of distributorships, giving them an area and selling them goods they cannot get rid of. This does not appear to be covered in this Bill and I would like to know when the Minister proposes to introduce legislation covering this evil. I hope it will be ready very soon because this type of business is on the increase and I am anxious that this legislation will be put through as quickly as possible. I appreciate that there are certain difficulties in bringing in the technical legislation needed because one must ensure that one does not injure innocent firms.

Roadside trading has been discussed at length and I share the views already expressed on this point. Many small firms have been put to the wall because of these traders. People who buy from them are contributing to the downfall of small firms and to the loss of jobs of people working in these legitimate businesses who pay their rates and taxes. People who buy from these traders are often buying somebody else's bad fortune because these traders usually buy the stock of firms which have gone bankrupt.

I want to discuss travel agents. I am glad the Minister has included services in this Bill. I hope travel agents who sell holidays which are found to be unsatisfactory will be held responsible, thus ensuring that people are reimbursed. I have met people who had very bad experiences. They have often looked for refunds because they were kept waiting two or three days, the hotel was not satisfactory or there was no room available and they were put into an inferior place. This happened to me on my honeymoon. The room I booked had been given to five young fellows. I got them out quickly enough because I ordered a taxi, told the hotel people I was going to the most expensive hotel in the area, that I would send them the bill and then sue them. I was bluffing, but it seemed to work because the room was available. People should not be subjected to this kind of thing. If they book a certain type of holiday proper accommodation should be available; if it is not, the travel agent must be held responsible. On Committee Stage it will be very important that this Bill is dealt with in a mature way and that this Bill will be put through as quickly as possible.

Would the Minister keep an eye on sales? Some shops advertise gigantic sales. I understand that a few weeks before the sales the price of goods is increased and they are reduced again for the sales. That kind of practice, if spotted, should be stamped on. That is a minor point, but it is very annoying. Also some shops have inferior merchandise for their sales. People should know what they are buying and be sure that a sale is genuine.

On this very important Bill I want to pay tribute to the Minister for introducing it and to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy P. Lalor, who was in that Department and who proposed similar measures and recommendations some years ago. This Bill will have very far-reaching effects even to the extent of influencing industrial relations and the cost of living. Very often a hard-earned increase through the national pay agreement will be frittered away because people buy inferior goods and have no redress against the trader. One does not want to condemn all traders, because most shopkeepers and department stores are reputable establishments and give the customer a fair deal. But there are other firms who do not give the customer a fair deal and sell inferior goods. The old motto, caveal emptor, let the buyer beware, reflected Victorian morality. Or if you are idiotic enough to buy inferior goods, you deserve to suffer. Most of us are fools at some time or another and we need the protection of the State. We can still use our own intelligence in buying goods. When we think about the size of our incomes and the cost of living we realise the great effect this measure will have.

Consumers must be aware that some traders will, wittingly or unwittingly, sell faulty goods. I pay tribute to the newspapers for their articles on consumer affairs and also to RTE. The Minister knew how much this Bill was needed and we compliment him on its introduction, as well as the Minister of State who is handling it in the House. The Minister promised further improvement and we realise that consumer protection requires on-going vigilance. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, then consumer standards also need constant vigilance.

There are unscrupulous people who will sell faulty goods and I refer in particular to faulty toys. Parents who buy toys for their children often find that they break within a few hours. Toys should be more durable. It has been said in America in relation to a certain government figure that "You don't shoot Santa Claus", but how often is Santa Claus portrayed as the figure of deceit when children receive useless toys in department stores? The betrayal of the child's faith in Santa Claus is even worse than the sale of faulty goods to an adult. The State cannot force us to obey the Ten Commandments but we can create a situation in which the person selling faulty goods would be sent to a moral Coventry.

This Bill will alert people to the need for a business-like approach when purchasing goods. We are also concerned with faulty services. We can all quote instances of engaging people to carry out some service whose work has not been of a high standard. In mediaeval times the trade guilds in this city and in other cities ensured some form of consumer protection because they took pride in their workmanship and seldom produced shoddy goods. Co-operatives were founded in Britain in Victorian times to give some protection to lower-paid workers, but these cooperative societies did not succeed in urban areas of Ireland. In Britain they have probably suffered from the advent of the supermarkets. I do not condemn supermarkets out of hand because some of them have very high standards of efficiency and service. In the old corner shop there was a more personal and generally more honest service. The clientele was smaller and there was more time to examine goods. Today we are inclined to dash into a shop and buy goods in a hurry, only to discover afterwards that they are faulty. This Bill will provide protection in such an event.

The protection which this Bill will give to consumers will save a lot of money and will also ensure a rise in the standard of our products. People will become more discerning, knowing they have the full backing of the law against anyone selling a defective article or providing a defective service. The Bill is an instrument of consumer defence and I look forward to discussing it further on Committee Stage in order to ensure that it becomes a perfect shield for consumers.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share