EU Consumer Rights Directive: getting it right - European Union Committee Contents


Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers 420-426)

Ms Maggie Craig, Mr Harold Gay and Ms Linda Jackson

21 MAY 2009

  Q420  Baroness Perry of Southwark: I think I should add to what Lady Gale said, that you are the only witnesses we have had who are generally happy with the entire Directive. This question is mainly directed to Ms Craig, because the CBI response did not refer to the unfair contract terms in your submission to us. Ms Craig, you mentioned two areas where you think there are unfair contract terms. You mentioned the transfer of obligations and the change of terms of contracts as two that are missing in the Directive. Could you explain how you would like to see the provisions on unfair contract terms amended in the Directive? If the Directive was to be left as it stands, what do you think would be the consequences?

  Ms Craig: I am not, by any manner of means, qualified in contract law, so I do not want to go into too much detail. We did put it in our written submission, but my understanding there is that we want to narrow the scope of it. We are particularly concerned here that it should not be deemed unfair to vary a contract where there is a valid reason for doing so. There are certain things here. First of all, if the Directive was to stand as is, there would be some inconsistency between its provisions and the unfair contract terms in UK regulation. This is all very technical enough, so to have something that is inconsistent would be an issue. From a UK insurer's perspective, we believe it is very important that the insurers retain the right to vary contract terms where there is a valid reason. Just to expand on that a little bit, I absolutely accept that only the courts can decide what is a valid reason but we have had guidance from the FSA on what constitutes a valid reason, so we are not trying to be arbitrary about this. If I can give an example to you, if we take, for example, annuity contracts that our members sell, our annuity contracts are sold, the consumer buys the annuity, and that annuity is bought for life. The annuity contracts are current priced at the moment taking account of certain tax issues that relate to life insurance companies. If, for example, the Government were to change that tax treatment, that would inevitably follow through to change the pricing of the contract, so it is in that sort of space. If we were unable to have the right to vary that contract, then inevitably the insurers would be taking on a greater risk, so ultimately they would then have to re-price the whole contract and that would feed through. It sounds very, very narrow and very technical but it is really about the fact that we are in the risk business. If there are outside influences or changes that affect the risk we are facing, then we would want the right in those circumstances. It is something we are doing further work with on the FSA, because we recognise this is very important and that we have to tread carefully. I hope that helps.

  Q421  Baroness Perry of Southwark: Do you have any thoughts on that, Mr Gay?

  Mr Gay: Without going into any great detail, one of the things that did concern us is the process for mainly the amending of the Annex II and the Annex III lists, the Comitology process. Given that changing those lists would have quite a large impact on businesses generally, it needs to be a very open and transparent process with stakeholder involvement and that does not seem to exist in the way that it is drafted. There is a change of burden of proof with the way that particularly the Annex III list is constructed, in that it says "presumed to be unfair" rather than "may be regarded as unfair" which is a slight upping of the ante from where we have been. But, again, I think there is a benefit to harmonisation. If you take the package as a whole, there is lots of detail about this and lots of debate about whether the case law that exists will continue to exist and what the challenges are at dealing with it, but if you look at it from the broader perspective, if you can draft a contract that will stand up across Europe that has to be of benefit from a business point of view, and it is about getting the balance and the package absolutely right. There is some detail, however, and it is far more difficult to tease out the issues in this particular part than anywhere else, so I do not want to give the impression that I am entirely happy with it but, again, we have accepted it on the basis that it is a balanced package.

  Q422  Baroness Perry of Southwark: As a consumer, if you have a contract with one supplier and that supplier without any reference to you sells it on or passes it on or gets taken over by another supplier, and you discover that the terms of the new supplier are to your disadvantage and that you do not have the rights that you had with the original contract, surely that is a very unhappy thing for the consumer. As I understand it, the Directive has no provision for that at all, whereas in British law we do.

  Mr Gay: I am sorry, I do not want to get into the technical, but does it not fit into the default provision inside one of the articles of the Directive? You cannot have a default clause. I would suggest that you then have to tell the consumer and give them the opportunity to walk away from the contract, to give them the choice. I am sorry, this is not my area, but it is an interesting point.

  Baroness Perry of Southwark: It is certainly something we need to look at.

  Q423  Lord Inglewood: I would like to ask one point about Comitology which arises out of the remarks that you made in your statement. Do you feel that your concerns about openness in respect of the Comitology proceedings could properly be dealt with if the Government gave certain undertakings about consultation with stakeholders? Obviously much of it is done relatively below the parapet, and it is open to the UK Government, because it is going to be negotiating, to consult with stakeholders. Would some copper-bottom guarantees from them deal with many of your concerns?

  Mr Gay: I think so, if it was open and transparent enough. It is about openness and transparency. The problem about these sorts of processes is that you often find out that they have amended something too late. We need the time and the opportunity to comment on that and to be engaged in it.

  Q424  Chairman: One of the things that Ms Craig and Mr Gay have both talked about is the complexity of some of the issues. Perhaps I might return to harmonisation, the right to reject, how we reach the end of this story. The Commission's suggestion is that full harmonisation could apply alongside contract law and the work being done on the Common Framework. Do you think that would cover the right to reject? Or how much more complicated would it be across Europe if you found you had two sets of law: contract law and full harmonisation?

  Mr Gay: I do not think that is an approach. I was a little bit surprised at the Commission coming out with that solution this late in the process. They have known that we were looking at harmonisation. They knew that we had two sets of provisions in the UK that overlapped and that this was a way of making sure that they no longer overlapped. That is something that I am very surprised on. It would add complexity immensely. I do not really see how their argument stacks up. I can see it in some areas, but not all of the areas that they talk about. Again, it feels like a fudge in order to get the Directive to the endpoint.

  Q425  Chairman: I think you have just said what I cannot say. The real issue is: if that is so and there are the issues that you have raised on financial services, would it not be better that there was more time and thought? It is not that anyone thinks there is not an appropriate way towards some sort of full harmonisation, but if these things were, if you like, as my mother would have said, "bottomed out", copper-bottomed, so that people know and there is clarity, would you not feel that is a better way forward, rather than rushing into the full Directive, unification and harmonisation approach?

  Mr Gay: The package, as it was put together, we could have proceeded with as it stands, with willingness on all sides to continue to deliver consumers a good standard of consumer protection. Where we are now is that there is so much tinkering around the edges and people playing with it, that maybe it is time to step back and look again. It is certainly not going to complete the parliamentary process as it stands at the moment, so it probably is the case of taking time. But I think they have been looking at it now for four years, so, from a business point of view, I just do not see what the problem is. We would have completed two takeovers by now. It does not quite add up.

  Q426  Chairman: Get on with it and clarify it.

  Mr Gay: Yes.

  Chairman: I would like to thank you very much. We have found that an extraordinarily helpful session. You may think we have been pursuing you on a number of issues. We have no line; it is simply that we have to know what we have heard before and then get clarity and get on the record your answers to some of the questions where we want further clarity. I am sure the Committee would join me in saying we have found that very helpful. Thank you very much indeed.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009