Consumer Guarantees Bill (Hansard, 28 June 1990)

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, this Bill has had a chequered history. It has now reached Report stage in your Lordships' House and, not for the first time, a great many important new issues are proposed for debate. The rash of amendments that appear each time this Bill reaches a new stage is a poor indicator of its general state of health. The Government's anxieties are on record about the proposals on consumer guarantees. During the Committee stage in this House my noble friend Lord Ullswater made plain that the Government do not accept the policy behind this approach.
At the core of the Government's objection is the creation of long-term rights of rejection through refund and replacement remedies. This fails to strike a fair balance between the interests of the consumer and those of the producer or supplier. Some have said that there is no inequity in this approach because the regime is not a mandatory one. I remain sceptical that this is the case.
As my noble friend Lord Ullswater said, the consumer's central concern is that goods should be of satisfactory quality, and that if they are not he should be able to get satisfaction from someone. The provisions on consumer guarantees would create a statutory framework which offers the consumer different remedies in different circumstances against different defendants in the manufacturing and supply chain. I remain sceptical that this is the right approach. The Government consider the Sale of Goods Act to be the proper framework for these issues.
There is a real risk that the practical effect of these proposals on consumer guarantees would be to undermine existing protection under the Sale of Goods Act and to discourage rather than stimulate the provision of guarantees with consumer durables.
1805 My noble friend also indicated to the House that the Government considered these proposals seriously defective in technical terms. Indeed, I believe the sponsors of the amendments themselves acknowledge the technical difficulties inherent in addressing this issue in legislation. When he moved these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether the Government would be prepared to take away the amendments and to redraft them as appropriate.
We have considered the provisions on consumer guarantees and come to the conclusion that they are irredeemably flawed. For example, the provisions fail to address adequately how rights under the guarantee regime would relate to other rights under the Sale of Goods Act and other statutory provisions. There is no consideration of the extra-territorial implications of this regime, and the obligations of foreign producers and rights of consumers in respect of goods taken outside the United Kingdom. The Bill is silent about how refund and replacement remedies would operate in the context of purchases made under finance agreements. The creation of long-term right of rejection in the context of consumer guarantees raises many difficult questions about the basis of calculation of allowances for use and misuse and where the burden of proof would lie in cases of dispute, but the Bill fails to address those questions. Those examples are illustrative of the fundamental yet unsolved problems which lie at the heart of this approach.
In addition to the more basic problems, the proposals also contain a number of other technical defects of a less fundamental nature.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, proposed and has spoken to a number of amendments which touch on some, but not all, of these issues. While the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness address some of these points, they do not provide a complete solution and would not result in a piece of legislation which was coherent and consistent. The difficulties inherent in these proposals are such as to render them unworkable without fundamental revision. We consider the whole approach to be fundamentally and irredeemably flawed.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, the Minister has spoken of the Bill's state of health. I agree that it has had a very rumbustious background. However, I remind him that it was not the fault of the promoters that it took five hours at Second Reading in another place and three days in Committee. It was because at that time the Government appeared to favour the Bill. It was only at the very last instance that it was talked out in another place and only the rump of the Bill remained.
1806 Since the Bill was still called the Consumer Guarantees Bill when it came to this House, we thought it right to reinstate a consumer guarantee in it. That is exactly what we have done during the different stages in your Lordships' House. The Minister still opposes the idea that consumer guarantee legislation must contain a consumer guarantee within it. That is all these amendments seek.
I remind the Minister that the guarantee that we suggest is optional for suppliers. It is not inherent for a supplier to have a consumer guarantee. We have made it optional in the Bill. The Minister stated that the Bill is defective in technical terms. I remind him that we still have Third Reading. If he finds that there are technical faults he will have an opportunity to put them right at that stage.
We have before us the Consumer Guarantees Bill. Unless it contains a consumer guarantee it will be a very contradictory Bill. I commend the amendment.

§ The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter)
My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55 I declare the Question not decided and that further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Hatch of Lusby, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Jeger, B.
David, B.	Listowel, E.
Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller]	Meston, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Russell, E.
[Teller]	Seear, B.
Grey, E.	Tordoff, L.