Government opposed to ‘unilateral domestic legislation’ on consumer goods repairs

Government opposed to 'unilateral domestic legislation' on consumer goods repairs

The Irish government has said it will not support “unilateral domestic legislation” aimed at helping consumers understand how easy certain products are to repair, as it believes this should be done at an EU level.

The Information on Repairability of Certain Products Bill 2024, proposed by solicitor and Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly, was debated in the Dáil on Thursday and will be put to a second stage vote on Wednesday.

It proposes to create a “repairability index” for common consumer goods which would allow consumers to understand the ease with which a product can be repaired and to access information on the availability of spare parts and guidance on how to carry out repairs.

Mr Daly said his private members’ bill was “modelled on measures adopted in France in 2021 and Belgium in 2024” and would go further than the EU’s “right to repair” directive, which he said was “extremely limited in its scope and ambition”.

However, Timmy Dooley, minister of state in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, said the government was opposed to any domestic legislation on the matter.

“As a general point, legislative initiatives in this area are best progressed, where possible, at EU level to ensure harmonisation, promote policy coherence and avoid the risk of fragmentation within the EU single market,” he said.

“For these reasons, Ireland is supportive of introducing legislation on these matters on a cross-EU basis rather through unilateral domestic legislation.

“The EU Commission outlined in its competitiveness compass communication earlier this year that it will pursue a forceful approach to full harmonisation and enforcement.

“As noted, there are developments under way at EU level which would impact the bill or displace it entirely.

“As Ireland is required to transpose the directive into national law, the private members’ bill would create unnecessary duplication of effort and potential discrepancies with the EU framework.”

Share icon
Share this article: