Derek McDowell (Labour)

I broadly welcome the Bill. Members will forgive me for being a bit churlish at the beginning of my contribution but some of the rhetoric used by the Government side in welcoming the Bill was a bit over the top. The Bill, in effect, consolidates existing legislation and transposes into Irish law the unfair commercial practices directive of 1995. It also gives significant additional powers to the new agency, which it very much needs if it is to be an effective advocate of consumer rights and an effective protector of consumers.

I am probably not a great consumer. If I want a blue shirt I typically go into just one shop and buy a blue shirt. I do not shop around for the cheapest or the best value, nor do I inspect every blue shirt in Grafton Street or Henry Street. I am not very price sensitive though I do not allow myself, or do not think I allow myself, to be ripped off. I do not much welcome the assistance of shop assistants and am unlikely to complain afterwards. I say that to make the point that I do not regard myself as unusual. Quite a few men and, no doubt, some women, are like me. Irish people generally are not great consumers. We are not great complainers and are not very familiar with our rights. If we do complain, it will be weeks or months later, in the privacy of our own homes or the pub. If my blue shirt turns out to be a dud I simply do not return to that shop for another blue shirt, but I do not complain.

This is an important point because the culture of consumerism is critical. We can and should put in place the proposed new agency. It is important we have all the rights set out in this and other consumer legislation but, if we do not know about them and do not seek to enforce them, they are hardly worth the paper on which they are written. A very important aspect of the new agency is that it does not rely on the individual consumer to protect consumers. One of the great faults of the core Act, the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, is that it puts the onus on consumers to enforce their own rights. We are entitled to have products that are fit for purpose and of merchantable quality but, if we do not get them, the obligation is on the consumer to complain and enforce his or her rights in the Small Claims Court or another court. In many cases that costs too much or is too much hassle so we do not bother. One of the potential advantages of the proposed new agency is that while it does not become involved in individual cases, it has powers to proactively protect consumers by carrying out research, publish its results and name and shame.

The power to name and shame could prove the single most important power of the new agency. The agency has enhanced powers to impose fines, which will be used in cases coming to court, but the power to name and shame is crucially important. We have seen its effectiveness with health and safety legislation and, perhaps more important, with food safety legislation. Where courts publish the names of individual restaurants which have transgressed regulations it has a powerful, coercive effect on restaurateurs, as it should. I hope the power will be extensively used because it is an important part of the armoury of the new agency.

I listened with interest to what Senator O'Toole said earlier. He is more expert than most in the mechanics of setting up an agency of this kind. The agency has existed on a non-statutory basis for some time so perhaps some of the hurdles he identified have been cleared, which I hope is the case. It is hugely important that we recruit the right people but also that it is properly resourced. One of the flaws in the current Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs is its lack of appropriate resourcing. A new office will always take time to get up and running but it is crucially important the new consumer agency be appropriately resourced to put into practice what we are setting down in law.

The major complaint from individual consumers, as we have heard this afternoon, is about price inflation. I saw the programme featuring Dr. Luntz the other night and price inflation was raised, though not on very many occasions. I hope Members will forgive me for using the phrase, but we have had a very unintelligent debate about inflation in this country. We take into account headline prices but scarcely anything else. We pick out bad examples and highlight them, which is right to do, but we must also look at the underlying picture, which is much more complicated. There is, for example, a huge difference between the rate of inflation of goods manufactured in Ireland and that of imported goods. There is a huge difference between the rate of inflation for services and that for goods. It is, unfortunately, axiomatic that goods produced in Ireland are likely to be more expensive than those produced abroad. The rate of increase in domestically produced goods, such as still exist, is much higher than for imported goods, the most obvious example being clothing. We now produce virtually no clothing but the clothing we import has, for the most part, come down in price in recent years rather than risen.

I will digress for a moment to introduce a different element into the discussion. Energy exercises people greatly, not least because it is, directly or indirectly, affected by Government decisions. We should seek to keep the price of energy low and it is incumbent on regulators to do so. Indeed, in so far as it makes decisions directly affecting prices, such as in setting excise duty, it is also incumbent on the Government to do so. We must, however, stand back for a moment. We have embarked on an interesting debate on climate change in the past few months. The greatest contributor to carbon emissions is unquestionably the use of energy. One of the proposals for reducing carbon emissions from energy is to activate the price mechanism. Are we speaking out of both sides of our mouths? We argue that we must keep energy prices low to sustain economic growth in the interests of consumers on the one hand, but most of us genuflect in the general direction of the climate change agenda by suggesting an increase in the price of energy on the other. I am trying to sort out this dilemma because climate change and what Ireland can contribute are worthy of a more intensive debate.

I did not support the abolition of the groceries order. It provided a minimal but useful element in ensuring that competition in the supply of groceries sector, the supermarket sector, continued. It would be fair to state that the jury is still out. The Minister claimed that he could point to a reduction in prices. If there is a reduction, it is slight and based on the November or December consumer price index figures. This is an important issue.

I am not a fan of price-fixing and the relevant powers are retained in the Bill. Nor am I a fan of maximum price orders, a power that the Bill also retains. To ensure that prices are within reasonable ambits, we need competition in all sectors, including supermarkets. The groceries order was a clumsy but useful way to maintain competition.

I will revert to my basic point. Many of the measures in the Bill are good. The list of restrictive, unfair or aggressive practices to be outlawed numbers 26 or 30, which is impressive. If it can be done successfully, we and the European Parliament will have done a good day's work on behalf of consumers.

To ensure that the Bill becomes a reality, we must resource the agency and people must know their rights. A long list of outlawed practices is of no use if the general public is unaware of it. For example, the Bill will outlaw the bait and switch practice. A wonderful phrase, it involves bringing people into shops to sell them products at low prices, those products becoming unavailable suddenly and asking the people to buy something that is not as cheap or as good a bargain. The last of the cheeky Charlie arguments is pretending that one is running out of a particular product. We can agree that such aggressive or excessive trading practices should be outlawed, but people must know of it. One of the first jobs the agency must take upon itself is to ensure that it informs people of their rights by way of the Internet, leaflets or so on.

I was struck by Senator Hanafin's remarks regarding the Internet, which poses a growing problem, but no effort has been made in the Bill to tackle Internet shopping. It is difficult to police the Internet, but since an increasing amount of shopping is being done through it, we must find a mechanism to police it on a European-wide basis at least. I am not sure whether any moves are afoot, but it is a lacuna in our regulations on consumer protection that must be addressed. I welcome the Bill and will support it on Second Stage.