Vol. 661 No. 1
116 Deputy Pádraic McCormack asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she has been in contact with the National Consumer Agency to establish an alternative dispute resolution procedure as a means of resolving disputes arising out of consumer transactions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31019/08]
The statutory mandate of the National Consumer Agency as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 2007 specifically includes promoting the development of alternative dispute resolution, ADR, procedures as a means of resolving disputes arising out of consumer transactions.
Currently one of the procedures most used by consumers for achieving redress is the Small Claims Court procedure. The Small Claims Court procedure provides an inexpensive, fast and easy way for consumers to resolve disputes without the need to employ a solicitor. Since 2006, the Small Claims Court operates an on-line dispute resolution procedure where claims can be filed on-line. The limit for processing claims in the Small Claims Court was raised to €2,000 with effect from 7 February 2006.
A further development in the small claims area was the adoption last year of an EU regulation establishing a European small claims procedure. The regulation will effectively enable a judgment given in a member state in the European small claims procedure to be recognised and enforced in another member state. I am advised that as part of an overall study in the area of arbitration and redress the National Consumer Agency will later this year, in conjunction with the Courts Service, consider the Small Claims Court and in particular the difficulties consumers can experience in enforcing the judgments of the court.
The agency has also recently developed a code of practice, with the Irish Home Builders Association, to be followed by developers in the development, interim management and sale of multi-unit development properties. The code includes specific provisions for dispute resolution and redress and urges unit owners and developers to use alternative out-of-court mechanisms for resolving disputes.
Europe has been a major catalyst in the development of extra-judicial options for dispute resolution. Much of the work in this area has been focused on ensuring that European citizens have access to cheaper, quicker and more informal dispute resolution mechanisms, thereby enabling them to better reap the benefits of the Single Market. In the specific area of disputes relating to consumer transactions, the European Consumer Centres Network is a network of centres established by the European Commission together with the member states which, among other things, promotes ADR schemes.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The European Consumer Centre in Dublin is funded jointly by the National Consumer Agency and the European Commission. Irish consumers who have a dispute with a retailer in another member state, or consumers in other member states who have a dispute with an Irish retailer, can contact the centre, which seeks to resolve such disputes in co-operation with experts in European Consumer Centres across the European Union. If the centre cannot find a remedy through direct intervention it will seek to assist the parties in taking their disputes to an appropriate ADR body.
The European Commission has promulgated a number of recommendations in an effort to provide a common minimum European standard for ADR schemes. The recommendations set out the standards and principles which should apply to bodies involved in out-of-court settlement and consensual resolution of consumer disputes. The Commission maintains a database of the various ADR bodies in the member states which subscribe to these principles. My Department is responsible for notifying bodies in Ireland to the Commission for inclusion in its database and has notified four such bodies to the Commission to date.
In the area of cross-border disputes, a European directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters was promulgated in May this year. This directive is essentially intended to provide a framework to allow parties to a cross-border dispute to attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute with the help of a mediator. The directive must be transposed into Irish law by May 2011. My Department will work closely with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which has overall responsibility for its transposition, on those aspects of the directive relating to cross-border consumer disputes. At a national level, the Law Reform Commission launched a consultation paper on ADR on 30 July this year. The consultation paper contains a significant number of proposals for promoting ADR as a means of resolving disputes, including a number of specific proposals with regard to consumer disputes.
The Deputy will see from the foregoing that a considerable number of initiatives are being undertaken at national and European level in promoting ADR as a means of resolving consumer disputes. ADR offers a considerable advantage by providing parties with a ready and relatively inexpensive means of resolving disputes. I am confident that through the work of the National Consumer Agency and the progression of the aforementioned initiatives, ADR will become a more accepted and mainstream means of resolving consumer disputes.
I thank the Minister for his answer. I was not really asking about cross-border trade and disputes but about the existing section 8(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides a mandate for the National Consumer Agency to promote and even establish alternative means of dispute resolution between consumers and, for example, retailers. There are two things that can be done in this regard. Does the Minister of State agree that the upper limit for a small claim, which is €2,000, should be increased? Almost any significant purchase, such as a suite of furniture or a foreign holiday, will be more than €2,000, and if there is a dispute one must then go to a higher court. Does the Minister of State not agree that this threshold should be increased so that consumers who have been ripped off by slightly more than €2,000 can have recourse to the Small Claims Court?
Will the Minister consider asking the National Consumer Agency to introduce a system of dispute resolution and arbitration for consumers, similar to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board? Thus the consumer agency itself could take on the job of arbitrating disputes between consumers and those against whom they are making complaints. This is provided for in the Act; it just requires a bit of leadership to implement it.
It is in the Act. The Law Reform Commission suggested that the limit be increased from €2,000 to €3,000 and the Minister continues to review such suggestions in the context of these claims.
How long will she review it for?
The court has been functioning very well. It is used widely and is becoming more accessible to the public as they can lodge their claims on-line. If we continue with our reviews, we can keep pace with what is required by the consumer. The system is effective. I do not see a role for the agency, as the Deputy suggests. Why create another model when the current one is functioning well? All it requires is to be reviewed from time to time and the Department and the Government are committed to ensuring that occurs. The upper limit of €2,000 can be reviewed again if necessary.
It seems "review" means "do nothing".
Reviewing does not mean doing nothing. The Deputy has a way of using weasel words and turning things around. It is not doing nothing.
A government should review a situation, make an assessment and then make a decision, and it may perhaps review things again at another stage one or two years down the line.
Exactly.
This Government seems to be in a constant process of review which is then used as an excuse not to make decisions.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I will ask the first part of my question again.
We get the facts and then we make the decisions, unlike the Deputy.
Please allow the Deputy to put his question.
Does the Minister not agree that the €2,000 threshold is too low and that it should be increased now and then reviewed at a later date?
I will tell the Deputy again, because he obviously was not listening, that it can be increased. It has been suggested that it be increased.
Do it.
It will be increased if the Minister so decides. The review is ongoing.
Will the Minister decide?
What is the date of the decision?
By the way, the Deputy should know that a review must be carried out before we can make a decision. In this way we are unlike the Deputy, with his continual knee-jerk reactions, outside on the plinth and up and down in his seat over there, without any consideration for the topic he is suggesting should be discussed.
117 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress there has been in reducing business regulation and red tape by 25% in all Departments, in view of her Department’s co-ordinating role; if she is satisfied with the progress to date in reducing business regulation, as highlighted in the first report of the high level group on business regulation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30988/08]
133 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reduction in the administrative cost of regulation since her Department adopted its 25% target; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30985/08]
135 Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment her plans to implement the recommendations of the high level group on business regulation, received by her on 6 August 2008, regarding a reduction in the burden of red tape on business; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30906/08]
197 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the amount the administrative cost of regulation has been reduced since her Department adopted its target of 25%; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31357/08]
I call on the Tánaiste, or rather an tAire Stáit. It is a formidable ministerial team.
It is value for money.
It takes five of them to mark us.
It is not just quantity, it is quality as well.
The cutbacks start here.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 117, 133, 135 and 197 together.
That will keep the Deputies on their toes.
We could do with a 50% cut right away.
That is efficiency.
The report of the high level group has identified more than €20 million in cost savings to business as a result of simplified administrative procedures of Government. The Government's commitment is to reduce the administrative burden on Irish business by 25% by 2012 and this demanding target is a key priority. The task of the high level group is to identify areas in which legislation has imposed an administrative burden, or red tape, on business and to recommend ways to reduce that burden without undermining the policy objectives behind the regulation. The work of the group is focused on concrete measures in specific policy areas, including taxation, statistics, environment, health and safety, employment and company law. The first report of the group sets out a number of instances in which procedures have been simplified, making it easier for business to deal with Government; for example, electronic filing of annual returns to the Companies Registration Office, on-line access to tax clearance certificates for Government contracts, increased exemption thresholds for VAT registration, and higher thresholds exempting small businesses from having to conduct statutory audits. In addition, further changes to reduce the burden on business are expected with regard to procedures for waste collection permits, road haulage permits and employment permits.
The work of the high level group is estimated to have saved Irish business €20 million in administrative costs this year through reductions in paperwork, revision of the rules for small businesses and provision for better use of on-line services. The rolling programme of work set out by the group must continue to be ambitious and I look forward to its continued work on the concrete suggestions put forward by the business sector. If the work of the group is to produce optimal benefits, businesses, especially small business, must continue to come forward with practical proposals for areas in which they feel the burden is greatest. Small businesses in particular have a lot to gain from participating in this process and making known areas in which they feel over-burdened by red tape. I encourage the business representatives on the high level group to continue to inform its work.
In addition to the work of the high level group, my Department has put in place a process across all Departments that will measure the administrative cost of red tape on business arising from domestic legislation. As in all other countries that have done this, it will take about a year and a half to complete the measurement process. In line with the recommendation of the Business Regulation Forum, we are adopting a prioritised approach. Initially, all Departments are required to list the information obligations which their regulations impose on business. Based on that listing, Departments will assess, in consultation with business, the most burdensome requirements and will measure their actual cost to business. At that point, the most appropriate approach to achieving the Government target of reducing by 25% the administrative burden of domestic regulation on business by 2012 will be determined. With regard to future regulations, the Government has agreed that all Departments should measure the administrative costs of regulations on business and specifically examine the impact on small businesses.
I am happy that we now have a target of 25% in reducing the administrative cost of regulation. This target does not have to be met until, I assume, the end of 2012. Does the Minister of State not think there is a good case for having an interim target? The Minister could report back early next year and tell us how far we have come in achieving the 25% reduction. In this way we will not have to wait until 2012 for the Government to tell us it has not succeeded.
A review.
Perhaps an annual review would be appropriate.
How will the baseline calculation for the cost of regulation be assessed? What model will be used? Before something can be reduced by 25% there must be a model to work out what 100% is. How will that assessment be made and when?
In answer to the first part of the Deputy's question, a reduction of 25% by 2012 is a target, but there is nothing to say we cannot meet the target prior to that date. I have carried out the assessment and the analysis. I have met the business organisations and I understand clearly what they are saying. They have made their submissions and in line with these we will consider a cost-effective way of delivering a smaller burden from Government. For example, let us consider the range of forms that must be filled in for the Central Statistics Office. I have met officials from the Central Statistics Office and have reviewed its forms. I have engaged with the SFA and tried in turn to translate that in a different simplified way to determine whether it would assist business. I have invited and have met the business organisations in recent months to determine if we can identify other areas that will assist. In line with what Deputy Penrose said county enterprise boards are significant players in this matter as they engage with the SME sector. I have used them as an information base to ascertain what is causing the difficulty for small businesses in particular. Legislation is often passed by this House and the one size does not fit all. We need to take an overview of that in light of the tight economic circumstances we are experiencing. We need to try to release the SME sector to do more important business in the real world to create the jobs and profitability they desire.
I might have disagreed with the broad thrust of what the Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness, said in his previous statement. However, I am totally ad idem with him on this matter. The Minister of State should slash and burn all the bureaucracy and he will have my full support.
I am your man.
There will be no lawyers left.
That is what we want to do — eliminate them from it altogether. In businesses there is the possibility of 100 different forms ranging from seven or eight pages up to 80 pages. The Minister of State is on the right track, and as he has a business acumen and background I expect him to be able to get it right. He recognises that businesses are significant collectors of taxes, including VAT, PAYE etc. Is it not time for entrepreneurs and proprietors of small businesses to get an allowance similar to the PAYE allowance? There needs to be some collection. Some accountants are there specifically to deal with the forms that exist. There are up to 1,000 different legislative provisions that are complex, some of them in the one Act. They impact on health and safety, company registration offices, the CSO etc. Businesses are compelled to reply to these. I have seen it with our own little shop. We are required to comply or they come back again. I often wonder why it collects information. However, that is neither here nor there.
They are used in answer to parliamentary questions.
Would the Minister of State consider introducing a red tape index in each Department and across Departments? This would allow for an instant review every three or four months. Some people believe the red tape simply exists and we cannot think outside the box. It is time to think outside the box of bureaucracy. I attended the Westmeath County Enterprise Board presentation last Friday week. The Minister of State is correct about the importance of county and city enterprise boards. While foreign direct investment and the work of IDA Ireland are very important, it is at a micro level that we will get over the hump. I ask the Minister of State to eliminate as much red tape as possible. He should slash and burn. He will be a hero if he does.
I do not know about being a hero. However, all great truths begin as blasphemies according to George Bernard Shaw. If the Deputy read my speech he would realise there is not a great difference between any sides in this House — all we want is the best for the country.
Deputy Varadkar asked about a measurement. While it cannot be answered simply as part of the response to this parliamentary question, a measurement exists and I will make the details known to him. However, if a greater efficiency can be achieved in measuring or identifying the red tape, I would gladly support any measure within the Department to drastically reduce red tape particularly in the SME sector which needs to be released. I am a practising businessman and understand the complications arising from the need for transparency, reporting etc. However, it must be simplified. I encourage the Deputy and small businesses that are interested in the matter to engage with the Department. The Tánaiste and all the Ministers of State in the Department are anxious to achieve what is best to allow business to operate in a simpler way so people can get on with performing on the front line rather than coming back late at night to complete forms. Any suggestions will be gratefully received.
I appreciate the sincerity of the Minister of State in this matter given his background in business. However, I do not believe he answered either of my questions which I will ask again. Would he agree it would be appropriate to have an interim target of, for example, 10% by the end of next year so we can review the progress he is making on an annual basis rather than waiting until the end of 2012 to see if he has achieved anything? The Minister of State said there is a calculation. I do not believe there is. I would be very interested to find out as soon as he can inform us what the monetary calculated cost of the administrative burden of regulation to business is and the model used to assess that. I doubt that is being done, but if it is I would like to hear the figure or even a ballpark figure.
A standard cost model exists and there is a model that is also implemented in other countries, for example the Netherlands.
However, the Government has not used the standard cost model.
I will make it available to the Deputy so he can fully understand it and will be able to question me on its specifics without any difficulty. I answered his first question. I told him that the target was 25% by 2012 and that my ambition is to reach that target much sooner than 2012 so the Deputy and other Members of the Opposition can measure it as we go along. To reach that target much earlier than the date we specified requires co-operation with the business sector and all agencies and Departments. We are committed to doing it and I will gladly report back to the Deputy in a year, in two years or in six months. I hope to make it better for business. That is my ambition within the Department.
I like quite a lot of the Minister of State's speeches so far — although not all of them. Hopefully we will see some action on them. If he is a man of action can he guarantee that from now on every new Bill we pass in this House will be assessed for the impact it has on businesses? We were promised that before, but it did not happen in the last term. Can the Minister of State say that from today it will happen?
Before the Minister of State's predecessor left he gave a guarantee he would work with the committee to solve the problems of local government regarding business, cost, regulation etc. Does that commitment still stand for the Minister of State and other Ministers to work with the committee to promptly address the problems of business and local government? While I believe the Minister of State does, I want a commitment across the board.
I call an tAire Stáit who, I take it, will speak collectively for the Government.
I had better not. Anything I say comes with a health warning.
A Minister speaking is speaking on behalf of the Government at Question Time.
A regulatory impact assessment is required for new legislation and it needs to continue.
It is not happening.
It is happening.
It did not happen in the last term.
Allow the Minister of State to speak.
We can double check that and make sure it does happen. Regarding working with the committee, I have already said to the Chairman that not only would I discuss upcoming legislation, particularly the company law reform Bill, but also I am available to the committee to thrash out any other aspect of business that requires discussion with the committee to get the best possible deal for business. I am also available for private briefings with spokespersons from Fine Gael and Labour or anybody else in the House. My interest is ensuring that they do well because the economy will do well if that is the case.
It is unfortunate that the economic downturn had to occur before the Government appreciated the need for this reform. However, we appreciate it and it is better late than never. Would the Minister of State agree that a number of ideas could be implemented fairly quickly, for example by having electronic versions of some of these forms available to businesses instead of hard copies? As he knows it is almost all hard copy at present. As I know some shops and other businesses might prefer hard copies, I am not ruling that out. Would the Minister of State accept there is great potential for merging the format of many of the forms businesses need to complete? Currently they all have different formats and are all over the place and surely could be streamlined.
As small businesses need to deal with a number of agencies, CSO, CRO, Revenue, CEB etc., as a long or even medium-term objective, could the Minister of State introduce a standard form that would suit the application to different agencies? Businesses should not be required to fill in the same information on many forms which consumes hours of business time and wastes time. The form should be simplified with four or five pages and not like the form for the carer's allowance. I filled in that form last night for a woman and it had approximately 20 pages, most of which was raiméis and wasteful.
The forms for Revenue and company registration are available on-line. I believe the forms about which the Deputy is complaining are those that generally come from the Central Statistics Office, which take some time to complete.
I have met with the Central Statistics Office to see whether those forms can be simplified or if some of Revenue's information could be used in regard to the statistics it is trying to collect. We will work with the Central Statistics Office to try to achieve that objective. That would relieve the burden. It is a question of identifying the problem and working directly with the agency concerned and the business that identified the problem to resolve it. Some of those issues can be resolved. Hopefully, in line with what Revenue collects and what the CSO wants, we can reach a resolution. There will always be a number of different forms because the CSO is collecting different information. Those forms need to be simplified. Sometimes in terms of the EU requirement and our own legislation, it is how the legislation is interpreted in the context of those forms. They can be simplified. They just need to be put in layman's language. We need to understand the requirements of small businesses.
118 Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason the National Employment Rights Authority has not been established on a statutory footing; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30978/08]
138 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when the National Employment Rights Authority will be established on a statutory basis; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30924/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 118 and 138 together.
The Employment Law Compliance Bill 2008 is designed to give effect to shared commitments in Part 2 of the ten year framework social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, to greatly increase public confidence in the system of employment law compliance. The establishment of a new, statutory office to secure better compliance with employment law through information and enforcement activities, supported by up to 90 labour inspectors with extensive powers, formed one aspect of these commitments.
Significant progress is being made on delivering the commitments agreed in Towards 2016 and, in this regard, the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, was established on an interim basis in February 2007, pending drafting and enactment of legislation, to undertake greater levels of employment law compliance activities. The Employment Law Compliance Bill was initiated in this House on 13 March 2008. Part 2 of the Bill provides for the establishment of the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, on a statutory footing.
The Bill is substantial and quite complex legislation, and in its final form will provide for necessary amendments to over 30 separate existing enactments from 1946 onwards. Since publication of the Bill, work has been continuing including further drafting of provisions, legal clarification of certain issues and preparation of schedules of amendments to existing employment law. In addition, account will also be taken of the views expressed by the social partners in the course of negotiations which led to the transitional agreement under Towards 2016 which was concluded last week. I take this opportunity to congratulate everybody involved — union representatives, employers and officials — in bringing forward that transitional agreement. Any remaining amendments and draft provisions will be the subject of discussion with the Office of the Attorney General and the intention is to have all outstanding work on the Bill quickly completed so it can be enacted as soon as possible.
The National Employment Rights Authority will be established one month after the Employment Law Compliance Bill 2008 is signed into law.
If I remember correctly the Minister of State said the Bill was published in March, only six months ago. It appears strange that the Bill, the purpose of which was to establish the agency on a statutory footing, was published six months ago and yet has not been brought before the House for debate. The only explanation that would make sense is that the Bill is essentially a bad one and is flawed and that, among other things, it potentially criminalises employers. In my case, technically as an employer of my personal assistant and administrative assistant, which is the case for all Fine Gael members, I would have to post a notice in my office, on a regular basis, advising them of their rights and their ability to contact NERA etc. That is just one aspect of the Bill.
It appears the Bill, as drafted, was so bad and so objectionable to employers and unions that the Minister of State has not been able to bring it to the House. Will the Bill come before the House before Christmas and, if so, will it be substantially redrafted?
Part 2 of the Bill provides for the establishing of the National Employment Rights Authority. That was the Part of the Bill that was published and presented to the House on 13 March 2008. It is complex legislation. We live in an era where social partnership is the bedrock within which much of the discussions take place. There were further discussions in that context in the interim agreement agreed last week between the social partners.
We present a Bill to the House. It is discussed not only by the social partners but by all Members. There will be an opportunity to discuss it on Committee Stage. We want to ensure that when the Bill is enacted it reflects what is required in the context of employment law compliance. It is a complex Bill and there are no quick fix solutions. There has been ongoing involvement, due to the discussions and changes in the context of the social partnership talks that took place recently. For that reason the Bill as presented, in certain areas, needs further changes. I am quite sure that when the Bill is presented and goes through the House it will have the support of all sides. I look forward to a fruitful discussion with Deputies opposite, who I know are very supportive of social partnership and what we were trying to achieve in the context of the challenges ahead. Deputy Varadkar is a wholehearted supporter of that process.
I assure the Minister of State the Labour Party is supportive. Let us be clear about that. Why was the Bill published? Why did not the Minister of State await the outcome of the social partnership talks? I appreciate he was under pressure from us all. Every morning the Taoiseach and former Taoiseach got up and replied to questions. Why did the Minister of State rush to the headland when the Bill was nowhere near the finite product? What was the reason for the rush? Given that the Minister of State was aware the social partners disagreed fundamentally with a significant and core element of the Bill, as drafted, at Part 2, why did he present it? Deputy Varadkar said we had better subject this Bill to bureaucratic evaluation as well because it contains many bureaucratic elements. While I support the thrust of the Bill, we need to "red tape" index it. What significant changes will affect Part 2 of the Bill, following the discussions that took place under the social partnership agreement, which was recently concluded successfully?
The reason the Bill was published was because a commitment was given in Towards 2016 to publish a Bill and to set up the National Employment Rights Authority on a statutory footing. The most important point to be made is that NERA is operating and has almost a complete complement of labour inspectors. It is enforcing employment rights compliance law which is welcome. It has collected substantial arrears for employees. The primary purpose of the National Employment Rights Authority is to ensure compliance with employment law. The Bill has two parts. Part 2 provides for the establishment of the National Employment Rights Authority on a statutory footing. It is up and running on an interim basis.
Over the coming weeks, much work remains to be done. Discussions are taking place with the Attorney General's office in the context of the most recent agreements arrived at in the social partnership.
When will we have the Bill?
We will have it quite soon. We are trying to ensure when the Bill is published that it is not rushed with amendments railroaded through the House. We want to have a genuine discussion on it. We are trying to get the Bill right in the first instance, to have broad agreement from the social partners and a good debate in the House. It is very complex but the Government is committed not only under the Towards 2016 agreement but under the interim one arrived at last week.
To follow up on that and to connect with the comments made by Deputies Penrose and English on regulation, anyone who has read this very complex Bill, as the Minister of State has described it, will see it will have a significant regulatory impact on employers, yet the process being used for regulatory impact analyses decided that after screening, this Bill did not require a full regulatory impact analysis. That shows how uncommitted the Minister of State is to tackling red tape and regulation. The Minister of State would take this massive Bill which is flawed and complex, as he has admitted, and screen it for a regulatory impact analysis and say it had no regulatory cost and, therefore, did not need a full regulatory impact analysis. How can he stand over that? Will he give a guarantee there will be a full regulatory impact analysis with numbers in it?
The purpose of Part 2 of the Bill, as published, was to provide for the establishment of the National Employment Rights Authority on a statutory footing. The employment law is already in place. Employers must comply with the employment law as it exists. This does not amend the employment law which exists in the context of minimum wage, holiday entitlements, EROs and registered employment agreements. Therefore, employers are compelled to comply with existing law. The issue of inspections does not impose a regulatory burden. When the Bill evolves and is finally completed we will ensure any burden on business is minimised. Fundamentally, this Bill is about employment rights, protecting workers, and ensuring they are entitled to their statutory provisions. NERA is working very effectively and its inspectors have joined up operations with Revenue and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Even though it has not been established on a statutory footing this organisation is working and is out and about. Deputies have occasionally said to me that it is an over-enthusiastic organisation but at the end of the day it is there to ensure that employers comply with the law. It is important also that it is trying to foster a culture of compliance. This is about educating employers, informing them of their various representative organisations such as IBEC and ISME, etc, so that we may achieve a broad compliance culture. It is not all about inspections but concerns education as well as enforcement.
119 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the steps being taken to implement the commitment in the programme for Government to ensure that consumer codes of conduct are published by businesses; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30936/08]
The Consumer Protection Act 2007, which commenced in May last year, empowers the National Consumer Agency to prepare and publish guidelines to traders regarding issues of consumer welfare and protection and matters related to commercial practices. The Act also empowers the agency to review or approve codes of practice submitted to it by traders or by their trade associations where the agency is satisfied that the code of practice protects consumer interests.
The agency is currently giving priority to producing guidelines for business in a number of areas. In early September it published a consultation document on guidelines for the retail sector relating to the advertising of price discounts and other associated matters. The guidelines are intended to facilitate the retail sector in complying with the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 in respect of a variety of misleading practices. When finalised, the guidelines will help traders to appreciate better their obligations to provide unambiguous information to consumers, to give clarity on certain aspects of the Act and to provide a basis for a fairer and more evenly balanced approach towards advertising throughout the sector. The agency is also close to finalising guidelines for the health and fitness sector, following a consultation exercise with key stakeholders.
The agency has also recently developed a code of practice with the Irish Home Builders Association which is to be followed by developers in their dealings in the development, interim management and sale of multi-unit development properties. The code, which came into effect at the start of this month, sets out a series of actions aimed to enhance the good operation of the multi-unit dwelling sector and thereby help to ensure that developers and consumers share an understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to multi-unit developments. The code includes specific provisions in respect of dispute resolution and redress and urges unit owners and developers to use alternative out of court mechanisms for resolving disputes.
I welcome the agency's initiatives in these areas and am confident that the production of guidelines in important sectors of the economy such as the retail and health and fitness sectors will help in the development of a strong consumer culture in those sectors. I support the agency's strategy of engaging constructively with businesses through initiatives such as agency guidelines and consumer codes of practice which will be of benefit not only to consumers but also to the businesses themselves and the economy as a whole.
Those specific commitments were given in the programme for Government and 15 months later we are still at the stage of evaluation and discussion. This is the fourth time I have raised this question this year — I raised it in February, April, June and now September. When will we actually see this code of conduct? When will the Government treat consumers with the seriousness they deserve? Has there been any discussion with the National Consumer Agency about the content of proposed conduct for the two sectors, retail and health and fitness? For instance, will the code of conduct for the retail sector include a commitment to pass on to consumers savings made by the retailers arising from the variation in currency values? We all know that one of the biggest rip-offs faced by the Irish consumer over the past year has been the failure of major multiples to pass on the benefits of the increase in value of the euro against sterling and the dollar. We all know there are serious concerns about the delays in passing on reductions in the price of oil.
Is the Minister of State aware that many consumers are concerned about gift tokens that are time limited? When a person buys a gift token the store gets the value of the token but the token expires if it is not used within a specific period. Can this issue be accommodated? If a person pays his or her €100 I do not believe a time limit should be imposed and if it is it should certainly be for longer than six months. I hope that matter will be considered in the code of conduct.
I shall correct the Deputy. It is actually the fifth time he has put a question on the matter.
I am a right pest.
Regarding the codes of practice, the first one was published on 1 September and relates to developers. There are ongoing discussions at present in respect of the retail sector. We expect the code concering the health and fitness sector to be published shortly.
I welcome that.
If the Deputy buys me a gift voucher I will not let it expire.
That concludes ordinary questions in the House today. We move to Private Notice Questions that have been allowed by the Ceann Comhairle.
