Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

In an open market it is fine, in theory, to say we must shop around but Irish consumers are in a small market, often in areas where there is not much choice, particularly rural areas where the question of shopping around does not arise. If we are talking about the basic basket of goods on which people must survive on a day-to-day basis, the Government's policy of abolishing the groceries order was welcome but what it put in its place was critical. The Companies (Amendment) Act did not address the issues that would have ensured that the pockets of consumers benefited from whatever competition came into the food sector.

The Government's policy has put more money into the pockets of the large multinational companies and the major supermarkets at the expense of small suppliers and consumers. We have not seen the benefits of the notional figure trotted out by the then chairman of the Competition Authority, Dr. Fingleton, that there would be an annual saving of €500, on average, per household. That was nonsense but, unfortunately, the Government accepted his view without any analysis in terms of how that laudable objective would be achieved. We are all in the business of trying to ensure that customers have the highest possible disposable income and that they are not ripped off, but a theoretical notion of how that might be achieved was advanced by the Competition Authority and the Minister of the day accepted it without question.

Legislation must be introduced to ensure that the rebates and discounts available now to the large suppliers with financial muscle in this jurisdiction in terms of the purchase of food products are passed on to consumers rather than pocketed in higher profits. One multiple has boasted that it offers significant grocery price cuts on products previously covered by the groceries order, but it did not highlight the increases on products not covered by the groceries order. The overall budget available to the Irish consumer means that prices have increased by an average of 10% in the past year. That is because the Government would not listen to the advice it got on the issue from many quarters, including Members of this House who sit on the Government benches.

The Minister should consider amending the Companies Act to ensure greater transparency in the food sector and in price sensitive areas generally that are important to the household budget. We should amend the Companies Act to ensure transparency in turnover and profitability on the big multiples here. That was a recommendation in the report of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business which was not implemented. This legislation provides another opportunity to do so in order to know whether the price strategies of these companies are contributing to higher profits at the expense of the consumer. We know the companies' turnover in this jurisdiction, as well as the turnover of some private companies which are not obliged to release this information. From the information they release we can see the pricing areas on which we must focus in the interest of consumers.

Another area of consumer protection is the lack of information given to clients purchasing investment products. As an accountant, the Minister of State is aware of the plethora of policy proposals, including life policies or investment intermediary products, available to consumers. Little information is available to consumers before they sign on the dotted line and begin paying the premium, which is frustrating for them. As a former insurance intermediary, I was always conscious of the lack of information available to people who were not brought up in the culture of understanding investment, the stock exchange, equity investment and other factors that make up the return one should receive as suggested by the sales pitch. Insufficient information is provided and insurance companies should be required to give further information to clients on investment and to be transparent in explanations. Funds may perform well or badly and there is a minimum and maximum return on a fund, depending on performance. At a time when people have money to spend and as many SSIAs will be maturing shortly we must work to make more investment information available to clients. The differences between products are confusing and there may be hidden charges of which banking institutions or building societies are not fully informing customers. Analysis is required by IFSRA to demonstrate the difference between products so people can compare them and not be exposed to risk or hidden charges.

In the 1970s and 1980s, some financial investment brokers played on the weaknesses of ordinary people when they received a lump sum from the sale of property or road construction works being carried out. We cannot be overprotective of such a sum on behalf of people who wish to have a nest egg for retirement or for family members. There are too many examples of misappropriation of money. This Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill provides an opportunity to reflect on whether we have sufficient protection and information for consumers. For the people involved this may be a very important investment decision and may have a major impact on how they retire.

Fine Gael supports this legislation and understands the valid reasons why the Government is bringing it before the Houses. I will table some amendments, to which I have referred. I hope this legislation will provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the Irish people that the Competition Authority is awake to the consequences for consumers of investment funds and takeover bids. It will not stand idly by and allow such matters to occur without regulation. We also have a review of regulators, who regulate on behalf of the country, its citizens and customers and not on behalf of vested interests.

See this speech in context