I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." The Title to the Bill states that it is: "An Act to provide that information relating to the repairability of certain products be made available and to provide for related matters." Ba mhaith liom ar dtús mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le hOifig na gComhairleoirí Dlí Parlaiminte as an obair a rinne siad ag ullmhú an Bhille seo, go mór mór d'Orla Ryan, Aoife Kavanagh agus Laura McCormack They gave us great help. These supports from the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisors, OPLA, are essential for Opposition TDs in order that we can both hold the Government to account and work constructively with it to introduce new legislation. This Bill is not just about sustainability; it also aims to enhance consumer protection and reduce the cost of living. I hope the Government will allow it a swift passage through the House. I hope the Government sees the extreme pressure that people are under and that this encourages the Government to introduce important measures to reduce costs for households in the current cost-of-living crisis. This Bill creates a repairability index for common consumer goods such as laptops, washing machines and lawnmowers. It allows consumers to understand the ease with which a product can be repaired, as well as information on the availability of spare parts and guidance on how to carry out repairs. The number of products covered can be expanded by the Minister, and there are sanctions for companies that do not comply. This means that the legislation can evolve alongside innovation and inventions in the future. Provision is also made in respect of enforcement. This will be essential in order for the legislation to be effective. The Bill is modelled on measures adopted in France in 2021 and Belgium in 2024. When households are making important and often expensive but essential purchases, they rarely have up to date, relevant information concerning the reliability of the products they are choosing. Consumers rarely have any data on how likely a product is to break or whether they are likely to be able to repair it. As a result, they are forced to make important decisions while relatively blindfolded. As disposable income dwindles and company profits soar, it is essential that we take steps to address this imbalance that ordinary people face. Companies are increasingly making products that will break and that will therefore need to be replaced. Due to the fact that these companies are driven by profit, products have lifespans that are far shorter than was previously the case. Companies truly do not make them like they used to, but this Bill can be used a tool to hold them to account. It can also act as an incentive to improve the durability of products as they become more attractive to consumers. I will turn now to the right to repair directive, which the Government is required to transpose into Irish law by the end of next year. The Government will claim that this is enough, but the right to repair directive is extremely limited in its scope and ambition. Product-specific regulations make it difficult to understand a consumer's right to repair different items, so we will need our own legislation and our own State-wide measures. For example, eco design regulations only apply to a few products covered through the product-specific regulations, leaving other products unregulated and potentially unrepairable. The EU has made certain spare parts available to end users, but these represent a minority of spare parts. The majority are only available to professional repairers who must undergo and pass a lengthy administration process before they are qualified to have those products available to them. The right to repair directive bans certain anti-repair practices, such as part pairing and software blocks, and requires manufacturers to provide repair services and information even outside the guarantee period. However, such anti-repair practices are still allowed if justified by legitimate and objective factors. This leaves a loophole for manufacturers and the obligation to repair applies only to those few products already covered by repairability requirements under eco design, allowing manufacturers to offer replacement over repair if this is cheaper. The right to repair directive mandates that consumers be given access to information on the price of spare parts and that those parts are provided at a reasonable price. There is a catch, however. The declared price will only be indicative and, let us be honest, is likely to be overshot by manufacturers. Furthermore, the concept of a reasonable price is not defined so the responsibility is left to member states or to case law. We have to go further than what the EU has suggested and directed. The EU will have repairability scores for products, starting with smartphones, under the eco design regulation but these repair scores do not include the price of spare parts as a parameter. This legislation, on the other hand, will include spare parts on the scorecard. As the cost of living crisis rages, we must do everything that can be done to reduce the burden on households. As well as the Minister of State's mandate regarding the circular economy, I am urging him to consider the relief this legislation will bring to struggling households when he is considering its passage through the House.

Sentiment score: 0.17

I thank the Minister of State for his comments. I thank Deputies Ahern and Donnelly for their support in this matter. I have listened to what the Minister of State said. I note what he said about the Private Members' Bill creating unnecessary duplication of effort and potential discrepancies. He said these matters were best progressed at the EU level. I disagree with him. I do not think that what is included in the directive goes far enough. That is why we are bringing this legislation. Just because the EU says something, it does not mean it should be the be-all and end-all of the matter. National legislation is important and should also be there if it improves an older set of recommendations or directives from the EU. The Minister of State said the matter was addressed in the right to repair directive but we do not think that directive goes far enough. While I note Articles 4 and 5, one other point I take issue with is what the Minister of State said about the manufacturer having to provide the indicative prices for repair on a website so consumers will have access to information. Consumers are beholden to the manufacturer and if they ever have the misfortune to have a car in a crash, for example, they have the book value but if they compare that value to the manufacturer's price or the garage price, there are big differences between them, which would inevitably be weighted against the consumer. Without meaning to repeat what I said earlier, there are a number of difficulties with or limitations in the directive. For example, what I said about vehicle design regulations can only apply to the few products that were covered through this. A point picked up by my colleagues is that there are loopholes for manufacturers. This legislation will give an ability to evolve if new products come in, whereas the directive is more limited in relating to and being directed at a certain number of products. That is not good enough, in our opinion. The EU has the right to repair directive, which bans anti-repair practices, but there is a loophole which says that it can be justified by legitimate and objective factors. I worry that will again be weighted in favour of the manufacturers. I have already mentioned the declared price being indicative. For those reasons, respectfully, I disagree with the Minister of State's argument that the directive is enough. I do not agree that this Bill will create duplication. I think it will only improve what is there. We will press this to a vote.

Sentiment score: 0.12