New legislation represents an honest attempt to bolster consumers' rights, but enforcement will be the key test of its success, writes Paul Cullen, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
The publication yesterday of the Consumer Protection Bill is an important step towards meaningful legal protection for Irish consumers, but there are many obstacles.
The Bill is a direct, welcome response to concerns raised in the "Rip-off Ireland" debate; the only pity is that it took so long to see the light of day.
Ten years after the Government came to power, legislation providing for realistic punishment for consumer scams and other offences has finally been published. Almost two years after the National Consumer Agency (NCA) was set up on an interim basis to fight for consumers' rights, the Bill proposes to put this agency on a statutory basis.
Even its publication now can in part be attributed to pressure from the EU, as much of the Bill draws on an EU consumer directive which had to be transposed into Irish law by next June.
Notwithstanding the delays, the legislation coming before the Oireachtas next week puts forward a broad range of sanctions that can be taken against rogue traders. The traditional courts route is transformed as fines of up to €60,000 and/or jail terms of 18 months replace the existing paltry fines for consumer offences.
Courts will also be able to tell offenders to pay compensation to consumers and to eat humble pie by publishing "corrective statements".
Legal remedies can be slow, however, so the proposal to empower the NCA to impose on-the-spot fines offers a quicker way of remedying consumer injustices. The agency will also try to name and shame wrongdoers by regularly publishing lists of convictions, although the success of this approach in other areas is debatable.
The Bill represents an honest attempt to clamp down on the myriad forms of scams and dodgy practices which errant traders come up with - an eternal problem that the internet and growing cross-border trade has made worse.
It targets conmen who make false claims about their products, who "bait" customers by advertising products that are not available or who engage in persistent and unwanted cold calling. There are provisions aimed at those who operate prize and lottery draw scams, and tricksters with their "get rich quick" schemes.
Other measures aim to put an end to the practice of ghost-bidding in house sales and car clocking in the second-hand auto trade. It would be an offence to tell consumers falsely that they require services, such as work on their car or house.
Massive penalties are proposed for those involved in pyramid schemes - up to €150,000 and/or five years in jail - and a loophole in existing pyramid selling legislation has been closed to outlaw "gifting" schemes.
However, consumers would be foolish to get their hopes too high at this stage, as the Bill may not get through the Oireachtas before the election is called. In that case, the Bill would fall, and it would be for the next government to go back to the drawing board.
The NCA would continue to exist in limbo alongside the far bigger and longer established Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs (ODCA), and the wasteful duplication of effort by both organisations would continue.
Even if the Bill is enacted as planned this spring, many uncertainties surround the planned move to Cork by the ODCA/NCA as part of the Government's decentralisation programme. With few ODCA staff likely to move over the next few years, a near-complete turnover of employees is likely.
Enforcement will be the key to consumer protection. Will the NCA have enough resources? Minister for Enterprise and Employment Micheál Martin said yesterday that the budget in this area was being doubled from €4 million to €8 million. Is this enough? Hard to say, but it doesn't seem huge.
The NCA will have a remit across the breadth of goods and services, but the Bill says that co-operation agreements will be drawn up to prevent duplication with existing bodies. The new body may have to fight a turf war against rival organisations in order to ensure that the voice of consumers is heard.
It will also have to show its independence from government if it is to become a credible advocate for consumers. In many other European countries, independent consumer organisations represent the interests of the ordinary citizen, often against the power of the state.
Here in Ireland, where so many consumer complaints are about the high prices and poor service offered by State-run organisations, this task has been entrusted to an agency under the control of Mr Martin's department. The independent Consumers' Association of Ireland, meanwhile, has been excluded from the partnership process, where key decisions are made.
A separate problem is that many of today's scams originate beyond Ireland and, in some cases, beyond the EU. Just how effective the NCA will be in tracking down cross-border crooks remains to be seen, but experience would suggest the omens are not good.
The legislation also provides a form of get-out clause for traders, who can plead that an offence was caused by mistake or by accident, or by the provision of faulty information by others.
There is little evidence that the courts regard consumer crime, or indeed any white-collar crime, as being as serious as other forms of crime. Apart from one recent case in which a retailer got the maximum €3,000 fine for failing to display prices, judges tend to show leniency in this area.
Mr Martin, speaking at the launching of the Bill yesterday, acknowledged consumers' anger. The question is whether this legislation will help alleviate that.