I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, to delete line 20, and substitute the following:
"(a) damage caused by death or by personal injuries, or".
I am disappointed that I do not see an amendment in the name of the Minister on this matter because the Minister of State, Deputy Leyden, who took the Bill on Committee Stage, indicated that he would look favourably on this amendment. In a nutshell, the position is that the Minister in putting forward the Bill has altered the wording of the Directive which has come from the EC and has altered it seriously adversely against the interests of consumers. Under the terms of the Directive, consumers were supposed to be able to get compensation arising from personal injuries or from death caused by a defective product. For that reason I just cannot understand, and cannot imagine, why the Minister and the Government have altered the wording of the Directive. They have altered it to the extent that rights given in the Directive are taken from the consumer by reason of the altered wording in the Bill. That is totally inexplicable and unacceptable.
Article 9 of the Directive gives a definition of the word "damage". The first thing I might say is that I do not think any definition of the word "damage" was necessary in the Bill because the word "damage" is a well established notion in the laws of this country; judges have interpreted it down the years. It is already very well defined in judicial decision. Any judge of any court will know immediately what may be the extent of damage an injured person can claim. But if it is decided that it is necessary to include a definition of the word "damage", I just do not understand why the definition given in the Directive is not used because the definition given in Article 9 reads:
For the purpose of Article 1, "damage" means:
(a) damage caused by death or by personal injuries;
But the definition of "damage" in the definitions section of the Bill says:
"damage" means—
(a) death or personal injury, or—
It excludes damage caused by personal injury. What is the difference between the two is the question which may be posed. Very substantial differences could arise. For example, if a person was injured by a defective product, was out of work for, say, six months or a year as a result of that injury, quite clearly — under the terms of the Directive — that person should be compensated and be entitled to be compensated for the loss of their earnings because that would be damage caused by personal injury. If one looks at the wording of the Directive clearly that would be included in that it says "damage" means damage caused by death or by personal injuries. Just to take one category, loss of earnings is something the Directive envisages an injured person would be entitled to; that could be a very substantial amount of money for a person who received a serious injury. But the definition inserted in the Bill restricts that completely and confines damage either to death or personal injury, that is to say, there the person would be compensated for the actual injury but not for its consequences, not for loss of earnings and not for consequential losses or damages.
There have been many instances in this House of legislation having been introduced following on EC Directives. When we in the House have endeavoured to secure improvements on that position, or even slight alterations thereto, the one identical response always forthcoming from the Government side, from the Minister concerned, from whatever Department may be involved is; that is the wording of the Directive; much as I would love to change it we are bound by the wording of the Directive; we must follow the wording of the Directive; that is the way it comes from the bosses of Brussels; we cannot change it, not to the right, not to the left. Yet here we find a blatant, obvious classic example where, on a matter of importance so far as consumers are concerned, the wording of the Directive has been altered.
If it were merely a matter of academic interest one might say all right, it is just a matter of verbiage, it is of no practical consequence, but that does not apply here. Here it is a very different matter. Here it is a very real difference. People will suffer and consumers lose as a result of this cutback on the rights the Directive intends to give consumers. There was no explanation of this forthcoming on the last occasion we discussed this matter. Indeed, I cannot see how there can be any explanation. Consumers are entitled to have the wording of the Directive followed; they are entitled to the rights conferred on them in the Directive.
What is the point in giving this "out" on such an important matter to producers, for the most part large manufacturers, most of them not even operating within the country at all? Why is the Minister extending himself to give unnecessary, uncalled-for protection to producers and manufacturers as against the interests of consumers? Is the Minister anti-consumer? One must pose that question. Why has the Minister gone out of his way to take the very unusual step of varying the wording of a directive that could mean substantial losses to consumers when the only benefit that will accrue therefrom will be to the benefit of producers and manufacturers?
One would not approve of it but could understand it if the taxpayers' position was involved, if it were something the taxpayer could not afford, would not be able to bear or whatever. One would not sympathise with that position but one could understand it. The only parties that will gain from this very strange variation in the wording of the directive are the large producers and manufacturers. One must ask why. I do not understand it for the life of me because I contend that consumers' interests should be paramount. The EC went to great lengths to provide the very limited protections given under the provisions of this Bill, and they are limited, as became all too apparent as we discussed this matter on Committee Stage, but even those limited provisions are being further cut by the Minister's alteration in the wording of the Directive.
It cannot be accepted and the House should not accept it.