Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)

That is what we are doing. I want to respond to allegations that this Government has somehow neglected consumers. I reject the suggestion made in the debate that we have been slow in bringing the Bill forward or that we are only doing so because of rules forced on us by Brussels. The notion that Brussels legislates while member states stand idly by in the wings, meekly accepting whatever edict is eventually handed down, is nonsense and shows a lack of understanding of how the European Union works. Member states themselves contribute to the design of legislation and our public representatives all have their say in the eventual outcome through the involvement of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Ireland contributed as much as anybody else to the negotiation of the unfair commercial practices directive. It includes many thoughts and ideas which this Administration brought to the debate. EU legislation is not some sort of fait accompli and it is unfair to those who participate in the negotiation process to suggest that it is.

This is major legislation which repeals nine existing statutes and completely reforms our domestic consumer laws. Major legislative reform on this scale does not happen overnight; it is the result of many months of dedicated hard work on the part of officials in my Department, those in other Departments and the Attorney General's office, and the office of the parliamentary counsel. To devalue that work by suggesting that it could have been done sooner does a disservice to all those involved.

I would also dispute the contention by a number of Deputies that Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill simply copy out the provision of the unfair commercial practices directive. Although we were obviously constrained by the maximum harmonisation status of the directive, any considered comparison of the texts of the Bill and the directive will show significant differences. The directive's provision on pyramid schemes, for example, numbers just 42 words. By contrast, Part 4 of the Bill on pyramid schemes includes three substantial sections and is over ten times the length of the directive's provision.

Deputy Hogan also referred to the current rate of inflation. Rising inflation is a cause of concern to all governments and many of the factors contributing to Ireland's current high rate of inflation are outside the Government's control. Higher international energy costs, rising commodity prices on global markets, poor crop harvests and declining fish stocks are all factors contributing to higher prices. Where it can take action, in areas such as grocery prices and insurance costs, the Government has introduced remedial measures that have had a significant impact. We are committed to improving competition in the economy and improving the competitive environment for industry. The forthcoming White Paper on energy will address the strategic challenges facing us in that sector.

When this Government sought to remove one of the principal causes of high grocery prices, Fine Gael and others fought the proposal tooth and nail. Some, like Deputy Morgan, are still fighting it.

Deputy Hogan complained about a plethora of regulators and their lack of concern for the welfare of consumers. The National Consumer Agency can be a thorn in the side of regulators when they appear not to be acting in the best interests of consumers. The agency will be empowered and resourced to be a strong advocate for consumers with regard to the activities of regulated sectors and the regulators.

Deputies Hogan and Morgan both expressed concern at the duplication of the activities of regulators. If the Deputies have read section 21 of the Bill they will recognise that it is designed to avoid any such duplication.

Some Deputies, including Deputies Hogan and Upton, referred to the decision to revoke the groceries order this time last year. There have been conflicting views, not only in this House but among commentators in the media, as to the effect of this decision on grocery prices. Based on figures from the Central Statistics Office grocery items previously covered by the order have declined in price by 1.2% since last April, when the order was removed. Items not previously covered, mainly fresh meat, fish and vegetables, have increased in price by 2.4%. These are fresh products so, historically, their prices have tended to fluctuate to a greater extent than prepared or packaged foods.

Nonetheless, the overall statistics for a combination of grocery goods covered and not covered by the order show a decline in prices of 0.4% since the order was removed. The Government never predicted that prices would decline and it would be foolish to make such predictions because so many factors impact on prices that one cannot predict a future trend for any category of goods. The prediction made was that grocery products would be cheaper in the future without the order than with it. The question that should concern us is how much more expensive our grocery prices could be today had the order remained.

See this speech in context