Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputy Durkan. I welcome the Bill in general, although I fear that it lacks the teeth that are required in this area. Under the Bill, the functions of the National Consumer Agency will be to publish research, act as an advocate on behalf of the consumer, promote public awareness, impart information to the public, engage in educational activities and generally to raise awareness. These are fine and laudable functions and, like motherhood and apple pie, one cannot object to them. However, it lacks teeth and smacks of being a sop to consumers.

The Minister said that the Bill aims to give responsibility to consumers, to empower them and make them more assertive. In many ways that is nonsense. Consumers are only as assertive as the law permits them to be. What is required is real powers of enforcement and they are not in the Bill. It is a cop-out to hand over to consumers responsibility to defend their own rights. It is the State, through this agency, that should be defending the consumers' interests. Only if the agency has strong enforcement rights and powers will this actually happen. The powers given to the proposed body are those which the Director of Consumer Affairs has had for many years. The Minister rightly paid tribute to the director. However, it must be admitted that the consumer has not been well served. I do not entirely blame the Director of Consumer Affairs for this because the office has neither the powers nor resources to defend the consumer. No Member can suggest the consumer has been king.

The Bill proposes procedures for alternative dispute resolution. While it is a laudable proposal for the solution of individual cases, what is required is a culture change which is pro-consumer and pro-competition. If such a culture were established, it would obviate the need for a new dispute resolution forum.

The Bill proposes the Minister may consult the agency regarding legislation and the agency can recommend further legislation to the Minister. While very laudable and desirable, it does not catapult the consumer into a position of power in the way required.

The proposed structure of the body gives me most concern. The agency lacks the independence required to be successful. It is too much in thrall to the Minister and the Department and will be subject to their wishes. This body must have a similar independence to that of the Ombudsman, if it truly is to be a champion for consumers and put their interests before those of providers.

The legislation, as drafted, limits the agency's sphere of influence when it comes to protecting consumers' interests where those interests conflict with sectoral regulators. Despite the great expectations with sectoral regulators, they have not always served consumers as they should. There is the ever present danger of regulatory capture. In these circumstances, to force the new agency to enter into co-operation agreements with various regulators will negate the purpose of the legislation. For it to operate strictly in the interests of consumers, it should operate independently of the regulators. Their function is to provide a level playing pitch for producers and providers. It was hoped they would provide a better deal for consumers but that has not always been the case. To put them into bed with the new agency is not the way to proceed if the interest of the consumer is to be paramount. To put the agency in a position where it is in thrall to the Government and subject to narrow political or special interests is wrong.

The enforcement function is inadequate. Like the Competition Authority, the agency will have the power to investigate. Having investigative powers, however, is not sufficient. It should have the powers immediately to close down anti-consumer practices. The power to act immediately is crucial rather than having to go through the courts. When such practices come to light, they are once-off, time-related incidents such as the sale of tickets for the recent rugby international. What went on was scandalous. The courts are redundant and can give no protection to the consumer in such circumstances.

Government agencies and protected monopolies have ripped off consumers. As Deputy Hogan pointed out, the prices of internationally traded goods and services have remained relatively stable in recent years, as those providers must survive in a competitive market. The prices of goods and services in the protected sectors, particularly Government-traded sectors, have gone through the roof. Last month inflation went over the 5% mark.

See this speech in context