EC Consumer Affairs (Hansard, 6 June 1985)

§ Baroness Burton of Coventry
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)
My Lords, I represented the Government at the Council of Ministers on consumer affairs on 21st May. I am pleased to say that there was a full discussion on the proposal for a directive on product liability which led to a constructive review of member states' attitudes to the current compromise solution.
The proposals for a directive on doorstep selling and consumer credit and those for an EC-wide home accident surveillance system were also discussed by the council.

§ Baroness Burton of Coventry
My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions arising from his Answer? Can he tell the House what obstacles remain to agreement by the council on the draft directive on doorstep selling? Secondly, can he tell us what progress was made on the draft directive on consumer credit?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, so far as doorstep selling is concerned, some members of the Community have domestic difficulties which they have yet to reconcile. Having said that, indication was given that a reconciliation is probable. On the consumer credit angle, all Ministers representing their countries expressed some reservations about the Commission's current proposals and have asked the Commission to rethink those proposals.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assessment of his views as to the depth of differences that may divide certain members of the Community? Are the differences on questions of principle, or are they merely matters which, after the lapse of perhaps a few weeks, can be satisfactorily sorted out? In short, is there broad agreement, with no basic difference between the members of the Community, on the proposals which have been put forward by the Commission?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is referring to the product liability discussions. There are no basic differences of principle. I am optimistic that, given 842 another two or three weeks, the detail can be satisfactorily reconciled.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, the Minister said that the product liability directive was likely to result in a successful compromise, but am I not right in thinking that that compromise will result in a very weak directive, leaving it on certain of the main issues to the individual countries to do precisely what they want? In particular, if Germany and France, and some of the others, rule out the state of the art defence for drug manufacture, as they are likely to do, and we keep it, is there not a fair prospect of this country being used for experiments, being the one place where a company will be able to experiment without any risk of liability if things go wrong? Are the Government really happy about this? Are the Government really content that our citizens should become, as it were, the guinea-pigs of Europe?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I do not accept that the ultimate conclusion of these discussions will necessarily be a compromise; neither is there any weakness in it. The development defence which is causing some difficulties with some countries is likely to be resolved, though it is true that certain derogations may apply, leaving individual countries particular options over a number of years. It is the matter of detail as to the number of years which is currently being discussed. However, I do not accept that our citizens will become anybody's guinea-pigs at all.

§ Lord Sainsbury
My Lords, may I return for a moment to the question of doorstep selling and ask the Minister whether he recalls that the House of Lords Select Committee on doorstep selling reported long ago in 1977? Is not this progress very slow? Can he be more precise in indicating when there will be agreement on this draft directive?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says—that 1977 to 1985 is, in some lights, a very long time. I should not like to hazard a guess as to when there might be a successful outcome. However, I said originally that I was encouraged by the discussions to believe that the outcome is that much nearer than I felt it was when last I reported to your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord the Minister on this, but can he tell us as a matter of fact whether it is true that it will be open to Germany, for example, to rule out a state of the art defence, whereas this Government seem determined to keep it? Is that a fact?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, that is not a fact at this moment in time.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, would the Government be prepared to consider drugs on a totally different basis from other products? In other words, would they be prepared to introduce strict liability for drugs; forgetting about other products for the moment? Is my noble friend aware of the relationship between this important question and the last Question on the Order Paper?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, in response to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, we are not really in favour of separating product liability as between one subject area and another.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, will the Minister explain his appalling phrase, "That is not a fact at this moment in time"? Does it mean that when agreement is reached Germany will in fact be in that position?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I used that expression to the noble Lord rather than saying that his question was hypothetical because the outcome of our discussions is some little way away. When we are in complete agreement—and it is the intention, the hope and the work of the presidency of the council to get complete agreement throughout the whole range of subjects—I can give the noble Lord a far more accurate answer.

§ Baroness Burton of Coventry
My Lords, while still believing that the noble Lord wishes to help and to get a move on with these general matters, is he able to tell the House when he expects a further meeting to take place? Are the working groups that have been set up due to report before any further meeting takes place; and can he give us any more details?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, the permanent representatives are meeting to discuss this subject on 14th June, they having been given three weeks since the last meeting to consult with their Governments in an endeavour to find a satisfactory outcome. There is obviously some degree of flexibility evident in all countries, and I would anticipate that, at about a fortnight from that date, Ministers will meet again.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if we approach these matters on the basis that this country itself has power to settle any of these things then we are well on the way to ruining the possible development of the Community? Is it not still at the stage of a meeting of nations, and that they have not yet got to the point where the affinity is such that one can talk as though it is one body making a decision? Is not slowness the only way of getting to the point where the whole thing will work?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, with his experience of European matters, for his supplementary question, with which I can only say that I am in complete agreement.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, the noble Lord was saying that the Government were not prepared to distinguish between drugs and other consumer goods. Why not?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, it is because we believe in the principle of product liability whatever the product may be.