§ 2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the draft directive on distance selling proposed by the European Commission and now under consideration.
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, the Government have made clear their total opposition to the revised text of this directive as submitted to the Council of Ministers last October. Since that date a number of compromise proposals have been tabled by the presidency which meet some, but by no means all, of the UK's concerns. Negotiations in Brussels are continuing.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that it would be an unnecessary blow to hotels and tourist accommodation if requiring a deposit were to be made illegal since a deposit is regarded as part of a transaction and is also understood to be an earnest of intention?
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. The Government are fully aware of the damage that would be done to those industries and others by the measure. That is why we have made it clear that we will not accept such provision in the proposed directive.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, will the noble Viscount clarify what he means when he says that the Government are in negotiations with the presidency? Do the Government not have their own views on the matter? Why do they have to negotiate with the president of the Commission? I take it that that is what the Minister means by the presidency? Why do the Government not have a view and stick to it?
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, we do have a view and we are sticking to it. I did not say what the noble Lord claims I said. I said that the negotiations in Brussels are continuing.
§ Lord Montagu of BeaulieuMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that in addition to the obvious example of hotel rooms, there are many events—exhibitions, agricultural shows and others—for which one has to pay in advance? This change would be a total disaster for many events and for the tourist trade as a whole.
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We are pressing for the exclusion of all services from the measure.
§ Lord WalpoleMy Lords, I wonder if the Minister can help me. I have a letter from my MEP which suggests that hotel rooms no longer feature in the directive. I spoke recently to a member, no doubt, of the noble Viscount's staff in the DTI, who told me that the whole matter is in the melting-pot. Whom am I to believe; and whom does the Minister believe?
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord believes the Government's view on the matter.
§ Viscount GoschenAs I said, a number of compromise proposals have been put forward. The ban on prepayment is one of the sub-proposals that have been dropped in the latest compromise proposals. The Government's view is that services as a whole should be excluded from the directive.
§ Lord Cochrane of CultsMy Lords, can the Minister explain why this matter does not fall within the ambit of national subsidiarity?
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, we do not oppose the directive in this area on subsidiarity grounds. We are, however, very concerned at the retrograde effect of the Commission's latest proposed text.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, will the Minister indicate in summary what are the essential points of dispute that remain? Is he aware that the Opposition share the concern that he expressed about the scope of the draft directive as originally drafted? Can he therefore indicate what sort of timescale he envisages for some appropriate directive to emerge?
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, we are particularly concerned at the enlarged scope of the proposal, which now covers all services including services with reservation. The provisions preventing suppliers from requiring payments in advance and allowing consumers to obtain instant refunds by challenging payment card transactions are equally unacceptable. These provisions threaten to place impossible burdens on tens of thousands of everyday transactions when there is no evidence that consumers are in need of additional protection. On the question of timescale, the UK Government continue to press their objections to the directive. It is not possible at the moment to pre-empt those discussions.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, can the Minister say whether the UK Government are supported by other member states in the objections they have made?
§ Viscount GoschenIndeed, my Lords. There is support from other member states. It would not be appropriate for me to detail the views of individual member states but there is support for the Government's view. I mentioned that the Government still have significant difficulties with the latest text. Again, it would be inappropriate to speculate on how those discussions might go forward.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, will the noble Viscount remind the House whether this is a matter to be decided by qualified majority or whether the Government have a veto? If it is the latter, will the Government use it in the last analysis?
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, the directive is subject to the principle of qualified majority voting.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, can my noble friend inform the House about the attitude of France to paying deposits? Does he agree that without our deposits, some of us who booked into hotels in Normandy nearly two months ago might well have found ourselves out on the beaches and in the fields again?
§ Viscount GoschenMy Lords, I trust that should my noble friend find himself on the beach again, it will be with a bucket and spade. It is not for me to speak for the French Government but it would be fair to say that they are generally supportive of the directive.