Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

——or perhaps that industry has a particularly favoured status. On the whole, the financial services industry has obviously been beneficial for this country, not just for its own sector. The industry has had spill-over effects, especially for the use of technology in selling and trading services, not only nationally but internationally also. It should be encouraged at every level. Unfortunately, however, we cannot extrapolate the success of this industry since 1989 into the future. A number of forthcoming difficulties may limit its scope for further advancement. Several EU countries look askance at the financial services sector's favourable tax treatment here, while other EU members states have chosen to adopt some of our policies in this respect. Some have chosen to go even further, which explains some of the provisions in this Bill with which I will deal in a moment.

In the current global international climate, investment funds are unlikely to have the yield they enjoyed in recent years. This is largely because of the lack of oil stocks around the world and is also due to the weakness of internationally-traded currencies in which most of these funds are held. There is an onus on the Government to introduce such legislation in addition to putting in place a long-term policy that would recognise the risks that lie ahead. Such steps would protect the industry and allow us to see how it can progress in the new global climate. Unfortunately, the Green Party cannot see any such long-term thinking by the Government in this area.

I find the concept of segregated liability, which is at the centre of the Bill, a curious one. The Government points to the fact that it now exists in France and Luxembourg. The latter country's economy has traded widely in financial services. The Irish financial services sector obviously believes that the existence of this concept in legislation will give it a competitive advantage which it would lose if it were not enshrined in our law. The legislation also raises the potential for using the separate funds that are being created, in terms of individual liability that might accrue to the fund holder, to move funds from one area to another to escape liability. That is why I am curious as to what extent the additional features of the Bill, including improved governance, will prevent such an eventuality.

I welcome the fact that the transposition of EU directives on market abuse and prospectuses will form part of the Bill. That brings me to another curious matter which the Minister of State might explain in his concluding remarks. The Bill is higgledy-piggledy in nature and some of its elements clearly relate to the Department of Finance. The legislation seems to include elements that have been thrown in, but together they do not make much sense.

The Minister of State might also explain the status of the changes in the Companies Act which this Bill is proposing, given the Government's intention to produce a consolidated companies Bill in the not too distant future. In that case, why was there a need to introduce such provisions in this Bill?

The consumer elements of the Bill appear to have been brought out of left field. They include provisions on package holidays and the extraordinary provisions relating to the groceries order, on which, today, the Minister decided there should be some public consultation process. Other speakers have indicated that they would welcome such a consultative process and the Green Party is not opposed to such a process at any given time. However, any step to remove the groceries order would not be in the interests of consumers, regardless of the recommendations of groups such as the Consumers Association. If there are changes to the groceries order the likelihood is it will mean the closure of more corner shops and the opening of more out-of-town shopping centres. Environmentally, socially and economically that would all be to the disadvantage of consumers. Hopefully, as that consultation process progresses and eventually finishes, it will underline the need for clarity in those areas. A distinct Government policy is required to prevent a two-handed approach to consumer protection.

See this speech in context