Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill, 1978: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 30:
In page 17, lines 1 and 2, to delete "to a hirer dealing as consumer".
—(Senator Molony).
The amendment we propose would have the effect of broadening the liability for persons conducting negotiations antecedent to a hire purchase agreement. While on several occasions I have acknowledged that the purpose of the Bill is to help the consumer, I have voiced concern also that the definition of the consumer in the Bill is extremely narrow and would only apply to circumstances in which a person who is acting, not in the course of business, buys a domestic product. This would cover a housewife buying a washing machine but would not cover a farmer buying a tractor or a business person buying an item of office equipment. In relation to very many of these types of contracts—whether it is a farmer buying a tractor or an office owner buying a piece of equipment—in buying these items these people are acting as consumers. The farmer is not a mechanic in relation to the tractor and the professional person or the businessman is not expert in so far as the workings of a typewriter or a photocopying machine are concerned. They require protection.
There has been a development in recent years, particularly in relation to the sale of office equipment and in relation to the sale of cars, or the transfer of ownership of cars, for people to adopt these agreements in order to avoid liability. We are left in a situation where the person who has possession of the goods is not the consumer, if one relies on this Bill for a definition of consumer, but he is a consumer. He is left in the position where he cannot enforce rights against the supplier of the goods. Our amendment seeks to remove that inhibition and give him access to the courts to enable him to take on a supplier where a supplier has treated him badly. I am familiar with very many cases in which people have been left without legal remedy because of this quirk in the law. I do not believe it was ever intended that a supplier should be able to avoid liability simply because of the introduction of a method of financing the deal. I would urge the Minister to consider the amendment. I know he is going to tell me that the Bill is there to protect consumers. I accept that but I say that the definition of the consumer is too narrow and also that there are very many aspects of this Bill that change the law so far as contracts that are not consumer contracts are concerned. The whole area of misrepresentation is being changed.
There are several other instances in the Bill where the law has been changed in relation to contracts that are not consumer contracts in the sense that the Bill describes consumer contracts. This is one area in which we could usefully advance the position of all consumers whether they are persons in business or whether they are consumers in the narrow sense of the word. I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
The effect of the amendment, as described by Senator Molony, would be that the liability created by section 32 would apply whether the hirer is dealing as a consumer or not. I regret, however, that I cannot accept the proposed amendment for the following reasons. It must be remembered that section 32 places a liability on a party, that is the dealer, who up to now could escape liability for faulty or defective goods. Previously the hirer's only recourse was against the finance house. The section, therefore, extends the options available to the hirer. However, in extending these options a deliberate policy decision was made to confine the liability to situations where the hirer dealt as consumer. Because of the new or extra liability created by this provision it was decided that this was as far as we wished to go and no further. It must also be borne in mind that this section has been considerably strengthened already due to an amendment introduced in the Dáil on Committee Stage. This amendment created liability for breach rather than for fulfilment of an agreement so as to make it clear that all remedies are available. The word "fulfilment" might have been misread. I was referring to the remedy of specific performance only. The amendment also had the effect of making both the dealer and the finance company statutorily liable for misrepresentation with respect to the goods passing from the dealer to the hirer. At present, under common law, it is not normally possible to make the finance company liable for statements made by the dealer as the dealer is not regarded as the agent of the finance company so as to make them responsible for anything he says. Furthermore, should the words "dealing as consumer" be deleted from this section, it would be necessary to do the same in section 14. While section 14 does not, in fact, relate to hire purchase situations, these two sections complement each other. It has been our intention that these sections should correspond as far as possible and we wish to confine section 14 to situations where the buyer deals as consumer.
It should be noted also, that this Bill does not set out to amend existing hire purchase legislation. The main objective was to up-date the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, primarily to give improved protection to consumers in contracts for the sale of goods. However, in doing this it was found that in order to be consistent in our protection of the consumer the position of buyers other than cash buyers had to be borne in mind. We took the view that a hire purchase, in substance, is not a form of purchase and it follows logically that the benefits being given to cash buying consumers should be appropriately extended into the hire purchase area.
Consequently, in Part III the Bill amends existing hire purchase legislation to the minimum extent consistent with the improvements and innovations introduced in Part II. In any event, only one section of one of the hire purchase Acts is being changed by this Bill.
The acceptance of the Senator's amendment could well have substantial implications for the body of hire purchase law which would make it necessary to carry out detailed research. This research has obviously not been done for the purpose of this Bill.
Moreover, the question of revising the law generally in relation to consumer credit is being considered separately by my Department in the context of the NCAC recommendations in this respect. It would be more appropriate to consider the general up-dating of the hire purchase legislation when the Department's proposals in consumer credit are being finalised. The Senator's suggestions will be borne in mind at that particular stage.
Finally, should the words "to a hirer dealing as consumer" be deleted from section 32 this would create an inconsistency in the Bill as the proposed Government amendment extending the Bill to letting agreements is confined to situations where the lessee deals as consumer. Also, it could restrict the availability of hire purchase in situations where the hirer is dealing in the course of business.
I compliment the Minister on the exhaustive reply he has given. His last reason is certainly not acceptable as a reasonable one, given the fact that he had advance notice of our intention to table the amendment. However, I am pleased that the Minister has decided to extend the legislation to include leasing arrangements but I would not have any objection to an amendment of the Government's amendment to extend this beyond the narrow band of consumers defined in the Bill. I accept a lot of what the Minister has said but I think that what he is doing is scratching the surface of a problem and doing no more than that.
I tried to gather some information, albeit in a very unscientific way, on the amount of hire purchase transactions that will be affected by this Bill. I have reason to believe that we are literally only scratching the surface of the enormous business that hire purchase companies engage in. The vast majority of their financial interests are in semi-commercial or semi-consumer contracts. I use the consumer definition of the Bill when I say that. Most of the people who really require protection are farmer-type people or business-type people who buy an item of equipment in the course of business. A shopkeeper, for instance, starting out is buying shop equipment or whatever and that is the person who requires protection but we are losing an opportunity of affording him that protection.
I see a difference between sections 14 and 32. I accept that one complements the other but you have to look at it in this way: before we ever thought of hire purchase agreements or of leasing arrangements or of promissory notes and so on that we have nowadays to avoid liability, we simply had purchases and sales and in those circumstances the supplier had a liability. The reality is that the introduction of these means of financing purchase transactions has taken the supplier on to a new plain where he avoids liability and I am trying to get over that problem. I regret that the Minister has seen fit not to accept this amendment. I do not accept his reasons as being valid to the extent that the amendment should not be considered. Finally, I can only hope that when some Government Department at some stage manage to introduce some consumer credit legislation, something might be done about this.
Senator Mulcahy rose.
We are on Report Stage and the debate has concluded on this amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Government amendment No. 30a:
In page 17, between lines 49 and 50, to insert a new section as follows:
(1) Nothing is section 31 or 36 shall prevent the parties to an international hire-purchase agreement from negativing or varying any right, duty or liability which would otherwise arise by implication of law under sections 26 to 29.
(2) In subsection (1) "international hire-purchase agreement" means a hire-purchase agreement made by parties whose places of business are in the territories of different States and in the case of which one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(a) the agreement involves the hire of goods which are at the time of the conclusion of the agreement in the course of carriage or will be carried from the territory of one State to the territory of another; or
(b) the acts constituting the offer and acceptance have been effected in the territories of different States; or
(c) delivery of the goods is to be made in the territory of a State other than that within whose territory the acts constituting the offer and the acceptance have been effected."
In the course of the Committee Stage debate on the hire purchase provisions of the Bill, Senator Molony raised the difficulty being experienced by Guinness-Peat Aviation and Aer Lingus in relation to the agreements which those companies enter into for the leasing of aircraft. The Senator made the point that such leasing is always by way of an agreement which on construction of the agreement would fall within the definition of a hire purchase agreement and this he said raised major difficulties for Guinness-Peat and Aer Lingus since their leasing agreements would seem to be got by the extensive body of legislation contained in the Hire-Purchase Act 1946 mentioned in Part III of this Bill.
I was not aware of the situation until the Senator brought it to my attention and I am very grateful to him for doing this. At the same time, however, I am somewhat surprised that the problem surfaced in the way it did. I understand that Aer Lingus who are 41 per cent owners of Guinness-Peat were asked for their views on this Bill via the Department of Transport and Power as long ago as 1977 but that at no time from then until Senator Molony raised the matter was the situation brought to the notice of my Department. Indeed, since the Senator raised the matter in the House my officials have been in touch with the Department of Transport as a result of which contact was made with Aer Lingus and Guinness-Peat and we have received letters from both organisations outlining their concern that their leasing arrangements seem to come within the scope of the Hire-purchase Acts and asking that a provision be included in the Bill to exclude such transactions.
While I am not convinced that exemption clauses employed by Aer Lingus and Guinness-Peat in such agreements would be found by the courts to be unfair and unreasonable, nevertheless I have decided to introduce an amendment in Part III of the Bill to allay their fears in this regard. The effect of this amendment will be to preserve the efficacy of exemption clauses in relation to international hire purchase agreements. This means that the terms implied under sections 26 to 29 of the Bill may be effectively excluded in such agreements. I have decided to limit this amendment to transactions of an international nature as it is mainly in the international field that the two above mentioned companies see problems arising.
It will be noted, too, that the amendment covers all goods and not just aircraft. It would be unwise and unfair to single out aircrift for special treatment. In both these respects, therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with section 24 of the Bill which provides an out for parties to a contract for the international sale of goods.
I do not wish to be seen to be questioning an amendment which I, in some way suggested was necessary but I have only been given the Government's amendment walking into the House today and I just want to ask if there is any possibility that a person operating, say, from a position outside this country, could operate a hire purchase business in relation to the purchases of goods within the country—if the Minister can follow that rather poor expression of what I am trying to get at—and because of this section avoid liability. I am thinking of the sort of situation where somebody sets out to avoid liability under this Bill by ensuring that the owner of the goods in a hire purchase transaction is, say, from the United Kingdom while the hirer is in Ireland. Would that be an international contract and if so could the owner of those goods avoid liability under the legislation?
I am told that if the proper law of the particular contract was Irish law therefore they would be excluded.
We know that most of the people who engage in hire purchase business in Ireland are connected with foreign companies. Take the situation where a company have a subsidiary in Ireland at the moment and they decide that they can use the section to avoid their liability. Let us say all their hire purchase contracts are operated by an English company. It seems to me that the section proposed by the Minister merely provides for the parties whose places of business are in territories of different states and there is an English hire purchase company and an Irish consumer. Secondly, it states that the agreement involves the hire of goods which are at the time of the conclusion of the agreement in the course of carriage or will be carried from the territory of one state to the territory of another state. Most of the goods that are involved in hire purchase transactions are television sets, washing machines and so on. Many of them are manufactured outside Ireland. I wonder if there is a possibility that by tying the two of those conditions together hire purchase companies could avoid liability.
We have here in (a), (b) and (c) the definition of an international hire purchase agreement. This is the type of idea we have in the case of contracts for the international sale of goods in section 24 of Part II.
I want to say I understand my position, that I am not entitled to speak more than once, but I wonder, if the Minister and the Chair have no objection, if I may speak? My only anxiety is to try to tease out the effect of this new proposed section. I only saw it half an hour ago when I came into the House. In addition to that, it may have the effect of altering things that we do not intend to alter. It is a most important section for that reason. I ask the indulgence of the House in relation to this.
The Chair would like to explain that Senators should understand that we are on Report Stage and that they are entitled to speak once only except the proposer of the amendment who is entitled to reply. However, as the amendment was received at short notice I will allow the Senator to make his point.
I have already given a detailed explanation as to the reason for it. It was the Senator who requested it. All we are doing is extending powers to the hire purchase situation exactly as we have done in Part II.
The Chair has permitted me to raise questions and I am very grateful for that because of the short notice that I got on this. I accept fully what the Minister is setting out to do. I just want to ask him questions to satisfy myself that its effect will be limited to that. I would like the Minister to explain a little bit more. I have indicated to him the difficulty that I see in relation to a particular type of transaction. I ask him to deal with that particular question. He has said, generally speaking, that it will not do more than another Part of the Bill. I am not too concerned with that. The section will be read on its own, its effect will be on its own and I think that it might be possible—I hope I am wrong—for somebody to avoid liability under the Act by misuse of the section.
I am informed the Senator is wrong. I have already given a detailed explanation of the reason for bringing the section in. It is merely extending to this section what is already in Part II. While I appreciate the Senator's fears, I assure him they are groundless.
They remain unanswered. I have asked a question.
The Chair cannot allow this to go on.
On a point of order, I merely want to say this. I am sorry the Minister has left the questions I have raised unanswered. It is frightfully unfair that we should be presented with amendments when coming in the door of this House. This Bill has been on the stocks now for a while and to put Members of the House in a position where they cannot ask questions and receive answers to questions like this where a proposition is presented before the House is certainly——
The Chair allowed this amendment because I understood that it arose out of something that was said by the Senator on Committee Stage.
That is quite correct, and I appreciate that the Minister took note of that, but what I am saying is that it may have a far greater effect than merely to deal with the point I made. I would be absolutely satisfied if the Minister would answer the questions that I asked him to satisfy me in relation to the example that I have given. I am not here to be difficult. I am here to try to find out what the effect——
I cannot allow this to go on because it is completely out of order.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 are consequential on amendment No. 31.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 17, between lines 49 and 50, to insert a new section as follows:
Where goods are let, otherwise than under a hire-purchase agreement, to a person dealing as consumer the provisions of this Part, other than section 26, shall apply to the letting agreement as if it were a hire-purchase agreement and in every such agreement there is an implied warranty that the goods are free, and will remain free, from any change or encumbrance not disclosed, before the agreement is made, to the person taking the goods and that that person will enjoy quiet possession of the goods except so far as it may be disturbed by any person entitled to the benefit of any charge or encumbrance so disclosed.
Senators will recall that there was substantial discussion on previous Stages of the Bill in this House as to whether contracts of bailment should be brought within the scope of the Bill. The main emphasis in these discussions was on the recent upsurge in leasing business. Various Senators were keen to extend the protection being given by the Bill to consumer leasing and letting agreements. Both the present Minister for the Gaeltacht and I maintain that the area of bailment contracts generally was too wide and complex an area to be included in the Bill at this point in its life. We maintain that the bailment area would need its own separate study if it were to be legislated for in a general way. The Minister for the Gaeltacht indicated on Committee Stage, however, that we were looking at the question of leasing to see if we could at least make some adjustment to the Bill to cover the aspect of bailment.
The amendment proposes, therefore, that the protection being given in Part III of the Bill to the hire purchasers will now be extended to consumers who enter other types of letting agreements. The type of agreements mainly involved here are contracts of simple hire ranging from the hire of cars, do-it-yourself tools and other short-term agreements to open-ended television rental agreements. Under the amendment the hirer would have implied rights that the good he hires would be of merchantable quality, that they would correspond with their description and so on. While this is as far as I am prepared to go in this area at present I think that what the amendment proposes is a worthwhile advance in terms of the protection available to the consumer who enters into a rental or simple hire agreement for goods. It also has the advantage of restricting the likelihood that various Senators pointed out of there being a swing to fixed terms consumer leasing by the retail sector to get around the increased responsibilities being imposed on it by Part II of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 which arise under section 40 and 47, are consequential to the proposal in that amendment. No. 34 extends the scope of Part V of the Bill, dealing with misrepresentation, to encompass transactions related to consumer letting agreements and amendment No. 37 extends to such agreements the Minister's order making powers under section 47.
I am pleased that the Minister has found a way to include leasing agreements. I must say again that because of the very narrow definition of consumer it will not have a great effect.
The only point I would make at this stage is that in the limited research we have been able to undertake in relation to commercial leasing we have established that in contrast to the consumer end of things, the issue of commercial leasing is too wide ranging and complex to be tackled in a Bill of this nature.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 is not in order on Report Stage.
Bill recommitted in respect of Government amendment No. 32:
In page 18, line 41, after "provides" to insert "whether in relation to such contracts generally or in relation to contracts of a class defined in the order in such manner and by reference to such matters as the Minister, after such consultation, thinks proper".
This subsection as drafted provides that the implied terms in section 37 will not apply to internal as opposed to international transport contracts until the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Transport, so provides. Such a provision, however, might prove unduly restrictive on both Ministers involved since the Minister could make a global order applying section 37 to all transport contracts without taking account of the difficulties attaching to various categories of such contracts. The amendment proposes, therefore, to give the Minister power to differentiate between the various types of contracts, whether these involve carriage of passengers or goods, carriage by road or rail and so on. I feel that such a provision is an improvement on the subsection as drafted.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 18, between lines 41 and 42, to insert a new section as follows:
—(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply to any statement likely to be taken as indicating that a right or the exercise of a right conferred by, or a liability arising by virtue of, section 37 is restricted or excluded otherwise than under section 38.
(2) It shall be an offence for a person in the course of a business to do any of the following things in relation to a statement to which subsection (1) refers:
(a) to display on any part of any premises a notice that includes any such statement, or
(b) to publish or cause to be published an advertisement which contains any such statement, or
(c) to supply goods bearing, or goods in a container bearing, any such statement, or
(d) otherwise to furnish or to cause to be furnished a document including any such statement.
(3) For the purposes of this section a statement to the effect that goods will not be exchanged, or that money will not be refunded, or that only credit notes will be given for goods returned, shall be treated as a statement to which subsection (1) refers unless it is so clearly qualified that it cannot be considered as applicable in circumstances in which the recipient of the service may be seeking to exercise a right conferred by any provision of section 37.
(4) It shall be an offence for a person in the course of a business to furnish to the recipient of a service goods bearing, or goods in a container bearing, or any document including, any statement, irrespective of its legal effect, which sets out, limits or describes rights conferred on the recipient or liabilities to the recipient in relation to goods acquired by him or any statement likely to be taken as such a statement, unless that statement is accompanied by a clear and conspicuous declaration that the contractual rights which the recipient enjoys by virtue of section 37 are in no way prejudiced by the relevant statement."
Senator FitzGerald suggested during the Committee Stage that it seemed unreasonable to create a criminal offence for sellers of goods displaying notices which purport to restrict or exclude the buyers' basic right, without making a similar provision for comparable practice in the area of services. As I mentioned in reply to the Senator, the coverage of services in this Bill is not as wide ranging as the provisions dealing with goods or, indeed, hire-purchase. Nevertheless this is one particular area where I agree that it would clearly be in the interests of the consumer to provide that a recipient of services could not be misled by means of notices which essentially take advantage of the consumer's lack of knowledge or inability to negotiate his or her legal rights.
I accept the amendment. Senator FitzGerald also raised the point in relation to the broad manner in which the other section of the Bill was drawn, that was to display on any part of any premises a notice that includes any such statement. The Minister reflected upon that, and said that a person could have displayed an old notice somewhere on his premises, which he neglected to take down. I thought it was a reasonable point. I wonder if that has been considered.
I agree that during Committee Stage, Senator FitzGerald raised this point. He made a number of points in relation to the display on any part of any premises of notices that include any such statement in section 11. With the greatest respect to Senator FitzGerald, I believe these points are more academic than real. I am advised that the meaning and context of these words are sufficiently clear in section 11 and the pragmatism of the courts is such that the possibility referred to by the Senator will not materialise.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 18, line 53, after "agreement" to insert ", an agreement for the letting of goods to which section * applies".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 19, to delete lines 37 to 40 and substitute "that provision shall not be enforceable unless it is shown that it is fair and reasonable."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 19, between lines 40 and 41, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(2) Subsection (1) shall not affect any right to refer a difference to arbitration."
During Committee Stage Senator Molony mentioned that an arbitration clause in a contract might be outlawed under section 43 as amounting to an exemption clause. He contended that such a clause might be literally construed as restricting a remedy available by virtue of the fact that it has closed off the right to go to court at least until after the arbitration proceedings. The point was made that this problem had arisen in England and that they had not been able to resolve it.
I have given the matter much consideration and I now see merit in the Senator's argument. I feel that arbitration clauses should be allowed to stand because of their efficiency in terms of dispute resolution. Consequentially, if there is any doubt or uncertainty as to their validity under section 43, I consider that it should be removed. I have decided, therefore, to introduce an amendment to meet this point. Its effect will be to ensure that arbitration clauses cannot be rendered void under the provisions of section 43.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 37:
In page 21, line 37, after "agreement" to insert "or under a letting agreement to which section * applies".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 38 and amendment No. 39 are related.
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 21, to delete from "for the" in line 51 to "service" in line 53 and substitute "who makes use of a standard form of contract (being a contract for the sale of goods, a hire-purchase agreement, an agreement for the letting of goods or a contract for the supply of a service)".
This section as drafted enables the Minister to require by order that the supplier of a service who uses a standard form of contract gives sufficient notice to the public of that fact and whether or not he is prepared to do business on any other terms. On Committee Stage Senator Molony wondered why the Minister was not giving the same order-making power relating to the sale of goods or hire-purchase contracts. I indicated that while the main reason for providing as in the Bill was that the services area appeared to us to be where abuses are more prevalent. Nevertheless, I saw no strong reason against extending the order-making power as the Senator had suggested. This is the main aim of the amendment which, incidentally, also takes account of the fact that we have amended Part III of the Bill to cover letting agreements other than hire purchase agreements.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are related.
Government amendment No. 40:
In page 22, to delete lines 12 to 16 and substitute:
"51.—The Minister may by order provide, in relation to goods or services of a class described in the order, that a contract (being a contract for the sale of goods, an agreement for the letting of goods, otherwise than under a hire-purchase agreement, or a contract for the supply of a service) shall, where the buyer, hirer or recipient of the service deals as consumer, be in writing and any contract of such class which is not in writing shall not be enforceable against the buyer or hirer or the recipient of the service."
With regard to section 51, which deals with contracts required to be in writing, Senator Molony made the point that should such a contract not be in writing, this would mean that it would be unenforceable at the suit of the seller and the buyer. The buyer would, therefore, have no implied rights under the contracts and, accordingly, no redress open to him should the goods purchased prove faulty.
I accept the point made by Senator Molony and I have decided to introduce an amendment to meet it. The effect of this amendment will be to make such contracts unenforceable to the seller or supplier where the buyer recipient deals with the consumer. This will mean that the buyer recipient who deals with the consumer will still be able to enforce the contracts in question whether they are in writing or not. The rationale behind this lies in the fact that we are trying to protect the consumer here. This envisaged that the provisions of this section will be used to suppress the use of prejudicial clauses, for example, exclusion clauses, which, while they will no longer have legal effect may be used by unscrupulous sellers or suppliers. I propose the amendment accordingly.
I am pleased that the section has been amended. The Minister proposes to amend the section because as it stood it was something that would mitigate very much against a consumer rather than in his favour. I can only say, having said that, that my inclination again would have been to delete the section altogether. At least the narrow definition of the consumer comes to my aid coming to the very end of Report Stage. There is a good case for certain consumer contracts to be in writing. It is a dangerous thing to change law that has existed for years and years and years by one section in a Bill. However, I trust that the Minister's advisers have considered this matter very fully. I merely ask that the matter be kept under review lest it has some ramifications that I had not anticipated.
I thank the Senator for accepting my amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 23, to add to the Schedule a new paragraph as follows.
"3. In this Schedule—
‘contract' includes ‘agreement',
‘term' includes ‘agreement' and ‘provision'."
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
There are a few general points I would like to make on the Bill. Before I do so I would like to go back to this new section introduced by amendment 30a on Report Stage. I regret that I did not have the opportunity to consider this fully, and I particularly regret that the Minister was not as anxious as I thought he would have been, given the spirit of co-operation that prevailed in both Houses on the passage of this Bill. Since he made his point I have managed to take a look at Part III of the Bill again, and I think it is section 36 that he feels would resolve any difficulty that I would anticipate in relation to this new section. I will describe it as amendment No. 30a as it is the only reasonable means of reference that I can have.
I would like to point out to the Minister that section 36, as I read it, proceeds on the basis that it will only apply where the proper law of a hire purchase agreement would be the law of Ireland. I see no difficulty for people who wish to avoid the liability that is imposed upon them in this legislation avoiding that particular premise. It is possible that this new section will be used to avoid liability.
Amendment No. 30a is very widely drawn, and I find it very hard to believe that section 36 would ensure the position of the consumer. I merely ask that the Minister be a willing participant in a full discussion of this in the Dáil, because it is something that should be teased out fully. I regret that that opportunity was denied to me today.
I would also like to make a general point in relation to many of the difficulties we had over sections in this Bill, that is something this side of the House strongly suggested at Second Stage debate, that a select committee be appointed to deal with the Bill. In the course of this debate I had the privilege of discussing the Bill with the Minister's advisers. That was something I welcomed. It certainly clarified for me many of the questions I was concerned with. I believe a direct exchange like that can be extremely useful. We could have used the resources of this House more efficiently had we adopted that as a general procedure from the very start. I suppose these things do not often happen despite the fact that there is provision in our Standing Orders for them. Perhaps the reason is that it has got a little seized up, something that is not used and perhaps needs to be taken out, cleaned, oiled and let roll again. It is very useful and beneficial. I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister and his advisers for the manner in which the Bill was presented and has gone through the Seanad.
There are a couple of areas in the Bill that could be a lot better. We have on several occasions discussed the narrow definition of a consumer. This is something that is to be regretted. When I first read this Bill over a year ago I felt that it was far more wideranging than in fact it will be. The reason for that is that most of the thrust of the Bill, the really useful remedies that exist in the Bill and the new rights being given, are given to consumers, but very narrowly defined consumers. It will, in effect, only apply to circumstances—I give this by way of example but I think it is a very typical example—such as a housewife buying a washing machine. It will not apply to all the transactions that we engage in all the time because we would fall outside the very narrow definition given to a consumer.
The next point I would like to refer to is a point of particular regret that I have, that is in relation to the section dealing with spare parts. I will not go back into the arguments again. This was a matter of policy. I cannot understand the Minister's reluctance to take a power that we were offering him. He did not have to exercise it unless he wished to. He resisted. Whether he was afraid of outside pressures falling on his Department afterwards or not I do not know. It is a matter of regret that he did not take to himself the power that we asked him to take to ensure that in relation to items of equipment that are dumped on the Irish market the Minister could insist that spare parts be made available for any period he chose to specify himself.
I want to echo words that were spoken by other Senators in the House on several occasions at different times during the passage of the Bill in relation to consumer awareness in this country. I believe that one of our big problems has been that consumers have not always been aware of their rights. I do not believe that recourse to the law afterwards is a reasonable way of ensuring access to justice for consumers. If when consumers go to buy their items of equipment or obtain a service they are aware of their rights their rights will not be blackguarded. That is, to a great extent, the root of much of the consumer difficulties we have today. I note that the Minister intends to publish a handbook in relation to the Bill in which the consumers' rights will be set out in layman's language or in consumer person's language. That should help very much. I urge him to ensure that that handbook is published very soon, and, certainly, published before the Bill becomes law.
There are a couple of comments that I would like to make on the Bill as it is passing into law. The first is that it is a Bill of very limited scope. When it was first published, this Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill, 1978 was greeted in the press as the shoppers' charter. It is nothing of the sort. Then, I do not think that it was intended to be. Its purpose is merely to extend and to amend the provisions of the 1893 Sale of Goods Act to bring them into line with modern day conditions. We were not shopping in supermarkets in 1893 nor were we buying things on hire purchase. Therefore, to describe this Bill as a shoppers' charter and, as was done in the press, to describe the 1893 Act as antediluvian, which implied that up to now the consumer was completely without any sort of protection is both an unfair comment and an uninformed comment on that Act.
It has been said several times during the passage of this Bill that we might have gone further. That we did not go as far as some of us would have liked is not due to any lack of good will on the part of the Minister, indeed far from it. It is due to a lack of an informed and aware consumer lobby in this country.
The consumer needs to be informed on two levels. First he needs to be informed of his rights. Here I feel that the Director of Consumer Affairs has a function. The consumer also needs to be aware of what he should look for when he goes to buy something. There are many motorists driving around the country who do not know the difference between a big end and a bicycle pump. When a person like that goes to buy a car he is not necessarily buying it from an expert motor mechanic, he is buying it from an expert salesman. Until he knows what he is going to look for I feel that this is an area in which a great deal of work remains to be done. We can see how well the consumer has been looked after in Britain with consumer advice bureaux and the magazines such as Which. Indeed any woman's magazines or family magazines published in Britain have, as well as their beauty editor and fashion editor, a consumer affairs editor. They have a page devoted to problems of the consumer. It is a very useful thing which we should copy.
I will not go into detail on what I consider to be a shoppers' charter. That has been very well done by Professor Whin-cup in his report published by NESC which is the basis of many of the sections in this Bill.
We need to provide for a more informed consumer, because legislation to protect the consumer is of limited value if we do not try to see that we have an articulate well-informed consumer. This was very well put by the Consumer Association of Ireland in their report on the need for a consumers' advice and research bureau, which was presented to the then Minister in June 1977. As far as consumer legislation is concerned we can legislate until we are blue in the face, but it is of limited value unless we are legislating for an informed consumer.
I thank Members for the welcome they gave to this legislation, for the manner in which it was debated and for the co-operation shown. Senator Molony made the point that this should have been in select committee. The Senator admitted that he received full co-operation from myself on this, to the extent of arranging for discussions with my advisers to clarify what is very detailed and complex legislation. What has happened, as a result of this committee on Report Stage, in the debate in the Seanad is that this Bill has been improved even further.
To refer to it as a shoppers' charter might be an over-statement, but this is major legislation. It is part of the Government's overall package of legislation for the consumer. Since this Government came into power we had the Consumer Information Act, and we now have this Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill. We will have the Consumer Credit Bill. We had the Occasional Trading Bill to be followed by the Casual Trading Bill. We had a Pyramid Selling Bill, and we have a Trading Stamp Bill and a Packaged Goods Bill which went through the Dáil today. All of this is part of an overall package for consumer legislation. The country has never before seen such a comprehensive package of legislation for the protection of the consumer.
I did not commit myself to introducing amendments, but many points were raised by various Senators throughout the course of the Committee Stage which I promised to look at again. Rather than answering those points in the House I will communicate directly with the individual Senators who raised the points, none of whom is here today so it would be of no benefit to go through them now.
Will the Minister send all the answers to everybody who participated in the debate? If it were in the Official Report we would all have the benefit of being able to read it.
I will arrange that Senators who participated in the debate will get copies of the answers also.
I thank the Chairman and the Members of the House for their warm welcome for the Bill. With regard to the point raised by Senator Molony on amendment No. 30a, I will go into it in greater detail in the Dáil.
Question put and agreed to.
