I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share time with Deputy Hogan.
Consumer Rights Enforcer Bill 2004: Second Stage.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Bill Fine Gael is introducing is an important one which provides for a badly-needed office. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Hogan, on the huge amount of work he has done on this issue. The basis of this Bill is about getting value for money. While we enjoy an exciting economy, with which we are delighted to be involved and which we hope continues, for reasons that have as much to do with the private as the public sector, we seem to have allowed a rip-off culture to develop in every part of commercial life. There is not one family listening to me tonight which does not understand my point.
It appears that no one is in real control, no one to blow the whistle when products and services are put on display for public consumption, irrespective of price hikes and rip-offs for profit which are not being controlled. For many years, I was informed that competition is the life of trade, in support of which we have some fine examples. Competition has brought services within the ambit of even the lowest paid workers. I need go no further than refer to air fares. It is not many years ago that travel by air was, in most cases, restricted to the well-off. However, that changed with the advent of cut-throat competition with Ryanair versus Aer Lingus and so on. Under certain conditions, it is now possible to get a flight from Dublin to Manchester or London for the same price as a CIE train ticket from Ballinasloe to Dublin. Everyone understands this phenomenon as well as I do and it would not have happened but for the entry of Ryanair into the business.
The reasoning behind this Bill is that one must have someone in absolute control with the legislative power behind him or her to make the system work. We have gone part of the way, but it appears to Fine Gael that there is not enough intensity of control over what is happening in the marketplace. I am not just referring to excessive prices of, for example, a glass of orange or other mineral, about which most people think when one refers to price control or provisions to stop rip-off Ireland hurting people, but rather to more substantial issues.
Members know that the Government is responsible for the greatest rip-off culture imaginable. For example, from a new house built by a young couple for an average of €230,000, the Government will cream off €106,000 in VAT, stamp duty, capital gains tax, planning permission and so on. While the Minister is likely to respond that those charges always existed, they were at a lower level. However, when one considers that the total share of the Exchequer finances derived from the new home market has increased from 3% to 9% in the past seven years, it gives one an idea of rip-off Ireland perpetrated by the Government.
We are in the happy position of enjoying growth rates of 4% to 5%. Moreover, I note from a recent report that we will have growth of 5% next year. We have better working conditions and life is better for many people, but why has the tiger economy left so many people almost as poor as they ever were, with all the goods and services they have to obtain in their daily lives? Competition in itself has not worked and a heavier hand will have to be brought to bear. This is the reason Fine Gael is proposing the well-named Consumer Rights Enforcer Bill 2004. Rights will be enforced to ensure there is competition and that the rip-off concept will be banned from Ireland for all time.
I thank Deputies Connaughton and Perry for sharing their time with me and apologise for being slightly delayed at the beginning of proceedings. I thank Deputy Connaughton for filling in so eloquently on the Fine Gael proposal before the House.
It is a sad indictment of the Government that rip-off Ireland has become the number one topic of conversation among ordinary people throughout the country. The level of the Government's failure in this area has been so monumental, deep-rooted and obvious that it has been left to the Opposition to come up with some answers as the coalition slips further into a state of total denial on the matter.
For the benefit of Government Deputies, following are a number of realities of life in Ireland today. Between 2001 and 2002, Ireland overtook the UK and Sweden to become the third most expensive country in the EU for consumer goods and services. By 2003, Ireland was almost on a par with Finland as the most expensive country in the eurozone, both countries being significantly more expensive than the next group of eurozone countries. Dublin is now the 21st most expensive city in the world ahead of Los Angeles, Paris, Miami, Singapore, Honolulu, Vienna, Helsinki and Abu Dhabi. Dublin is the fourth most expensive capital in the EU behind only London, Paris and Copenhagen and Ireland is by far the most expensive country in the EU in which to live. A basket of food costing €100 here, for example, costs just €82 in Britain. All this is delivered by a Government that inherited the lowest rate of inflation in Europe in 1997 at just 1.5%.
Lest the Government think that Fine Gael is making this up, the World Economic Forum has confirmed that Ireland has fallen from fourth to 30th place in the global competitiveness league. Recently, the National Competitiveness Council stated that Irish prices rose 22% more than those in other EU countries in the years 1999 to 2003. The economic consultants Compecon say that the lack of competition in the banking sector is costing small businesses €500 million annually. Mr. Jim Power, chief economist with Friends First, says: "Irish competitiveness has been seriously eroded by a sharp increase in the overall cost base, which will not be reversible".
If the Government thinks we and the best economic brains in the country are making it up, I can refer to quotes from Fine Gael's consumer website www.ripoff.ie, such as: “€2 for a dollop of whipped cream in a café in Donegal”, “€18 for an organic chicken in Dublin”, “ €70 for the installation of a doorbell in a new house”, “€14 for a two mile cab journey that the driver insisted be shared with another passenger” and “Irish whiskey cheaper in Boston Airport than in Shannon”. Web surfers have been disconnected from “no limit” subscriptions because they were deemed to have “used it too much”. These are just some of the examples ordinary people have sent to the website. Economists, politicians and punters are united in their belief that something needs to be done. However, the Government has no consumer policy, telling consumers to “shop around”, in the words of the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, and accuses the Opposition of being unpatriotic.
The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, said in the Brehon Hotel, Killarney, on 4 November 2004: "One of the great myths is there is in existence a rip-off Ireland mentality. That myth must be laid to rest for the sake of Irish tourism and the Irish economy". I will quote an e-mail received at www.ripoff.ie this week from an Irish American:
Much has been made of the American fear of travelling abroad in our post-9/11 world. This is nonsense. If Ireland has experienced a slowdown in the number of tourists, it is likely because of the exorbitant costs. Why would anyone spend large sums of money to visit Ireland, when they could fly to Spain, and stay there in a 4 or 5 star hotel and eat in great restaurants for a fraction of the cost?
This gentleman, living so far away, clearly did not hear the Minister's words of wisdom on the "myth" of rip-off Ireland. The Minister clearly has much work to do in convincing the American public of his cause, let alone the Irish electorate. Of course, this is the Minister who used the term "zero tolerance". I hope he will not succeed with zero tourism. Figures released by the CSO yesterday show the first reduction in the number of trips to Ireland for the month of September in three years. Fine Gael and I take no satisfaction in warning the Government that our tourism industry remains at risk.
The personification of the Government's inability to get to grips with this problem comes in the form of Senator Leyden, the Government spokesperson in the Seanad on enterprise, trade and employment and a former Minister of State with responsibility for trade and marketing. Last May he said:
Power is in the hands of the consumer. [I will endeavour] to empower consumers to take action to reduce prices and encourage competition. [I am today] launching a "name and shame" consumer price busting campaign.
He continued:
Consumers should now say enough is enough. I am hoping that this campaign will make consumers realise that they have the power to make a difference and through the Seanad I will make their voices heard.
Compare those sentiments with the ones he expressed in the Seanad just last week:
Fine Gael is trying to jeopardise employment and tourism by discouraging people from visiting Ireland. I have travelled in different parts of Europe and, irrespective of the costs, Ireland is relatively competitive in many areas. This has not been recognised on the Fine Gael Party's website.
Senator Leyden's words are Government policy writ large — no vision, no coherence and no grasp of reality. The Senator might be in denial about the access foreign visitors have to his pronouncements in the Seanad — which are just as accessible as anything on our website — but he cannot be in denial about the fact that rip-off Ireland is alive and well. We need to act.
The previous Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, was consistently one report away from action. In March 2000 she said: "the Government is determined to tackle inflation by exposing previously sheltered sectors to competition". In September of that year she said: "in an environment where we have 20% tax on capital gains and 12.5% on corporation profits, we cannot have the situation where the only people that pay taxes above 40% and 20% are those who work". Absolutely nothing has been done on that agenda.
Deputy Harney was good at commissioning reports and the Competition Authority was duly charged with investigating anti-competitive practices in the professions. This was done in May 2001. We are still waiting. Furthermore, the Competition Authority has indicated that the order in which professions will be dealt with shall be engineers, architects, dentists, optometrists, veterinary surgeons, medical practitioners, solicitors and barristers. That means the legal profession, which has been shown to constitute a massive drain on taxpayers' money, shall be the last profession to be subjected to regulatory reform.
The current regulatory framework shows how hopelessly prepared Ireland was to deal with the post-Celtic tiger rip off. The bulk of the Irish law on consumer protection dates from the late 1970s and the 1980s. It is worth looking at how archaic some of that legislation is in order to contextualise the changes we are proposing. The Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs was established in 1978 following the enactment of the Consumer Information Act 1978. Consumer law was strengthened in 1980 with the enactment of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, which guaranteed consumers certain basic rights in the purchase and supply of services and goods. In 1996, the director was also given power to control consumer credit laws and has been given responsibility to enforce EU labelling, pricing and advertising requirements on a number of occasions since then.
However, the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs is structurally compromised by its status as an agency established under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The ODCA receives its budget allocation through that Department and the director is answerable to the Minister in the performance of his or her functions. In recent years, there has been an increasing tendency to remove some of the more substantive powers and responsibilities from the ODCA. In 1991, the director's responsibility to monitor and tackle fair trade and restrictive practices was passed to the Competition Authority. It took another decade to see an increase in the level of activity. In 2001, the powers of the ODCA under the Consumer Credit Act were transferred to the new financial services regulator, the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, which appointed a new consumer director.
Irish society was significantly different in 1978 when the ODCA was established. Technological changes that have revolutionised the world of commerce had not happened. The Internet had not been developed and e-commerce had not evolved as a means of doing business. Scanning had not been developed and most products carried individual prices. Retail formats had not evolved and consumers had less choice of products, goods and services. Credit cards were in their infancy. Most utility services had not been liberalised or opened to competition and there were fewer foreign operators in the market. Consumers were less assertive and a culture of respecting consumer rights had not developed.
By 2004, the legal regime for the protection of consumers and the promotion of their interests has become dated, disparate and ineffective. Instead of a single independent and resourced watchdog, there is the ODCA, which is structurally linked to the Department and which has been denuded of many of its original powers and much of its impetus. In addition, there are up to five sectoral regulators with differing degrees of focus on the rights and entitlements of consumers who avail of those services that are being regulated. It is time for a streamlined and effective system that will ensure competition is allowed to flourish and that consumers get the fair deal they deserve. It is time consumers had a single, powerful champion of their rights and entitlements. Fine Gael policies, and this Bill, will make these aims a reality.
The Bill will replace the ODCA with an independent consumer rights enforcer who would have strengthened powers. The enforcer will be charged with developing a code of conduct for service providers, a quality mark for those service providers who best adhere to that code and a review of the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court to ensure that it best meets the needs of consumers seeking redress. The consumer rights enforcer will name and shame those service providers it believes are failing to provide consumers with an adequate standard of service. Further, the consumer rights enforcer will have a seat at partnership level to ensure national agreements do not impact too disproportionately on consumers. The Bill will allow for increases in fines and penalties to discourage breaches of legislation designed to protect consumers.
The Bill contains a number of important provisions. Section 4 provides a new mechanism to ensure that the appointment of the consumer rights enforcer will be wholly independent. In the same manner as an ombudsman, the enforcer will be recommended by the Dáil and Seanad and will be appointed by the President.
Section 5 confers a series of powers we believe are necessary to ensure that the rights of the consumer are upheld and, where necessary, enforced. These new powers are in addition to those already in existence. The Bill will enable the consumer rights enforcer to name and shame those found to be charging excessive prices. While some of these powers may have been given to the ODCA, which it may or may not use, under our Bill, there would be an explicit function.
The consumer rights enforcer would also be responsible for maintaining a website showing price league tables. A further key feature of the enforcer's role would be in the development of codes of conduct for specific service providers and retailers so as to ensure that when the price of a product or service decreases, that reduction will be passed on to the consumer in a systematic and transparent way. The new consumer rights enforcer would establish a scheme for attributing a quality mark to suppliers of goods and services who consistently deliver a high standard of service. With this heightened consumer-driven focus, the consumer rights enforcer would work with local authorities throughout the country to ensure that the interests of the consumer are addressed at local level. In addition to monitoring and acting at national level, the consumer rights enforcer would have a specific role in working jointly with local authorities to drive a pro-consumer agenda at local level.
Local authorities could do a great deal more to drive such an agenda. It has come to our notice that many of the licences issues in respect of waste management should be, constantly reviewed by local authorities to ensure better value for money and lower costs to consumers. A more regular review of licences for waste management operators is essential to ensure that costs are driven down and that those who avail of the services these operators offer can rest assured that they are obtaining them at the most competitive price.
The Small Claims Court can only hear claims involving up to a maximum of €1,270. This level is set by ministerial regulation. Under section 4 of the Bill, the consumer rights enforcer will have a role in reviewing the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court to see whether it is affording consumers adequate opportunity of redress.
In recent years unions, employers and the State have negotiated a series of pay deals through national partnership agreements. Perhaps one of the most serious failings of this process and other comparable processes is that the specific needs of the consumer have not been represented. We propose to remedy this by giving the consumer rights enforcer a place at the negotiation table to ensure that the voice of the consumer will be heard and not ignored. In addition, the consumer rights enforcer would have a right to be consulted on legislation which impacts on consumers.
Section 6 proposes to increase the penalties for breach of the Consumer Information Act 1978. The outdated £500 fine will be replaced with a fine of €3,000 and the £10,000 penalty will be replaced with the more severe €100,000 penalty. The Director of Consumer Affairs has said she favours tougher fines.
Section 7 would allow the consumer rights enforcer to impose an administrative fine in lieu of proceeding with a summary prosecution. In the consumer rights area, there has traditionally been a relatively low level of prosecutions. This gives the defendant the option of paying the fine and avoiding a court case and possible conviction. The application of a provision such as this should have the effect of saving time and expense where people do not dispute their guilt or where there is strong evidence that would be likely to secure a conviction in court. The wording of this section is modelled on similar provisions relating to the imposition of fines in respect of offences under the Litter Acts, the Road Traffic Acts and the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001.
The annual report of the Office of Director of Consumer Affairs for last year shows that only 13 prosecutions were taken. This is due to a number of factors, including the burden of gathering evidence sufficient to sustain a summary conviction and the cost of seeing the prosecution process through from beginning to end. Nobody could, in all seriousness, suggest that only 13 breaches of the law occurred in this area last year. It is time to grapple with this serious issue.
Section 8 proposes that the consumer rights enforcer may be called to appear before any committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas to account for the general administration of the office. Accountability is key to this body and the Bill ensures full accountability to the people via the Oireachtas.
I commend the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business which, under the chairmanship of Deputy Cassidy, investigated a number of consumer issues in the past year. In particular, its inquiry into the insurance industry yielded considerable results and support for the Government insurance reform programme. In the latter, the Tánaiste indicated that she wanted to see certain legislative provisions enacted to reduce the cost of processing claims and provide better competitive choice, thereby reducing costs to insurance companies which would otherwise be obliged to make larger pay-outs on claims from consumers. In the past year, the Civil Liability Bill, which outlaws and makes a criminal offence of the exaggeration of claims, and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Bill were enacted. Regrettably, on the first day of the law term, a case was taken against the full establishment of the PIAB. I hope that, with the help of the Oireachtas, the cost of processing insurance claims will be reduced and that insurance companies, which made profits of up to €700 million in 2003, will come clean and reduce, in a meaningful way, the cost of insurance, particularly as it relates to employers and public liability, for small businesses and consumers in general.
Section 9 of the Bill proposes to amend the penalty provisions in the Prices Act 1958 to increase the penalties applicable for failure to display a price list as required by law. The £100 penalty would be increased to €3,000. The daily continuing offence penalty would be raised from £10 to €300 and the penalty on indictment, from £500 to €100,000, while the continuing offence element would be raised from £50 to €1,000.
The proof that the Fine Gael policy can and will work can be seen in a survey undertaken by my party last year and again last week. In December 2003, we reported that various public houses in the centre of Dublin were charging €4.70 for sparkling water and lime. The Metropolitan Bar on Eden Quay was charging €3.60 and Maguire's of Baggot Street was charging €3.45. Those are some examples of what the survey yielded. Since the publicity created by our website and survey, those establishments have ended their policy of charging for lime and reduced their prices by up to €2. That is the result of just one survey on one product. I ask the House to imagine the customer service and savings that would accrue from a continuous survey taking place with the help of an independent consumer rights enforcer, the power of a State-funded, independent advocate with the resources, drive and power to investigate the economy and root out bad value. For those Government Deputies who hear stories on the doorsteps of rip-off Ireland and who promise their constituents that something will be done, I am offering an opportunity in the context of this Bill to vote with Fine Gael. They can raise whatever problems they may have with the Bill on Committee Stage. On Second Stage they are merely asked to support the broad thrust of Fine Gael's proposals. They can show their spirit and support and show that they are in favour of a meaningful vehicle to represent consumers.
I am delighted to speak on this Consumer Rights Enforcer Bill. On a point of information for Deputy Hogan, a pint of Guinness costs €3 in Ballymote and a still water is €1.75. I cannot see the justification for €4.70.
There is a better margin in Dublin.
I compliment Deputy Killeen on his promotion and I wish him well. This important Bill is a long overdue measure, which is born out of frustration with the Government's tardy and sloppy approach to consumer rights. There is a significant level of taxation. Deputy Richard Bruton this week noted the level of indirect taxation paid by the consumer. Consumers should be informed of the level of tax being paid on each consumer item. There is a perception that the retailer is earning a high margin of profit but it is often the case that the business, person is a tax collector. For every €100 spent in a grocery store, 9% is collected in value added tax. The level of tax on consumer goods is considerable.
Instead of prioritising consumer rights, the Government has put them behind the back boiler. There is no real commitment to modernise or update our consumer legislation, which is regrettable. I am disappointed at the level of indirect taxation. Personal tax rates have come down but the level of value added tax collected is greater than income tax. It is ironic that indirect taxation now outstrips direct taxation. When compared with other countries in Europe, more indirect taxation is levelled on the Irish consumer. It should be mandatory for retail receipts to show the level of tax being paid to the State. Consumers would then realise that out of €10 spent, the Exchequer receives €3.
The Director of Consumer Affairs does a fine job in difficult circumstances. Her office is tied to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and relies on that Department for its budget. I have first hand knowledge of her situation as a result of being a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. When the Accounting Officer of the Department made his report he was accounting for the Department. It is not a truly independent body because it is very much linked to the Department, which has failed to upgrade and modernise consumer rights and obligations. This is the 21st century. Deputy Hogan in his fine contribution described the significant anomalies that exist in the system. The market has to deal with scanning of products, the eurozone, the proliferation of different stores from all over Europe and the sourcing of goods, Internet shopping, e-commerce and a greater use of mail order. The retail market is increasingly, dominated by new entrants. It is imperative that the regulatory environment for these new technologies and markets is capable of adapting to change and responding to consumer demand. Consumer rights should be promoted on the national airwaves; Fine Gael should not have to do the job of Government by setting up www.ripoff.ie. It is a shocking situation. The Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs does not have sufficient funding to ensure it can give an immediate response to cases of rip-off pricing. Only 13 prosecutions have been taken and that statistic tells a story of the ineffectiveness of the office. It has not received sufficient support from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
It is alarming that the Director of Consumer Affairs has had no statutory powers conferred since the 1980s, nearly a quarter of a century ago. In that time the marketplace has been revolutionised by new technologies. The Director of Consumer Affairs has legislative powers rooted in the last century and this is wrong.
My background is in small business, which has received little or no support for the creation of jobs in the sector. It is regrettable that the biggest cost factor in any small company is the involvement of the State with high taxation and the level of regulation. Penalties for breaches of the consumer legislation are too lenient and too low. Deputy Hogan's Bill has addressed this issue. There must be a real incentive for businesses to protect consumers and comply with the law. It is not good enough for a large billion euro company to be given a slap on the wrist for overcharging a consumer or failing to display a price. Sanctions must be painful and immediate.
There is much in this Bill to recommend it. The increased involvement of the local authorities, the adoption of codes of conduct, the introduction of price leagues and the inclusion of the enforcer in the loop on new legislation, are all measures that should not present any difficulty to the Members opposite. These measures are what the consumers want and they will deflate the economy. It speaks legions about the Government's lack of commitment to consumers that this Bill is being opposed.
Some years ago, the Tánaiste was asked by the Director of Consumer Affairs to introduce price display regulations for doctors and dentists. To date, we are still waiting for these regulations to be introduced. The Tánaiste was all talk in that regard. As Deputy Hogan said, we have had publication after publication and reports from her former Department that resulted in no action being taken. I hope the same does not happen in the Department of Health and Children. It is difficult for consumers to take the Tánaiste's edict to shop around seriously if her own inaction has left consumers unable to see the price of goods and services on offer.
I welcome the Bill and commend Deputy Hogan for bringing it before the House. He has done trojan work as a crusader for consumers and customers. Consumers are entitled to be impatient and angry with the persistent Government inaction. I hope consumers show the Government a strong no-return policy at the next election.
I commend Deputy Hogan for bringing forward the Consumer Rights Enforcer Bill 2004. We usually deal with motions during Private Members' time and I always commend Members on the opposite side of the House who take the trouble to prepare a Bill. On this occasion Deputy Hogan has done the House a service by providing an opportunity to discuss some important issues which arise in regard to consumer protection law. However, for reasons I will outline, the Government does not accept that legislation along the lines outlined by the Deputy is appropriate or timely. The proposed legislation does not take account of work that is ongoing in this Department or that is nearing conclusion in the consumer strategy group.
At the outset I apologise to the House for the absence of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin. He is on Government business overseas. Otherwise, he would be here to participate in the debate. The Minister has made it clear that making progress on the consumer agenda is a key priority for him in the immediate future.
I acknowledge the growing concern that Irish consumers are paying more for many goods and services than our counterparts in other European countries. I acknowledge concerns in the area of protection of consumers and that the Irish consumer deserves a fair deal. It is instructive to examine what has led to these concerns and particularly what can be done about them.
The pace of growth in the Irish economy over the past decade has been phenomenal, of which we can all feel justly proud. We are now the second richest country in the European Union, barely behind Luxembourg. We have gone from a situation where our best and brightest talent had to move abroad to earn a living to experiencing net immigration with an estimated 100,000 foreign nationals employed in the workforce. Unemployment has plummeted and there are more people at work now than ever before. Ireland remains one of the most attractive locations on the globe for foreign investment and the performance of Irish industry has been robust. Enterprise Ireland last year reported new export sales of €1 billion, and 60 new high export growth companies were established.
Against this background it is hardly surprising that the consumer agenda, which is extremely important for a modern market economy, has moved centre stage. The Fine Gael Party, for which Deputy Hogan prepared this legislation, has referred to it as the rip-off culture and cites the 22% increase in prices over the past four years or so, but the spokespersons always forget to mention the 37% increase in wages during that period. It refuses to acknowledge the significant cuts in income tax during that time and the fact that the minimum wage here is three times that of Portugal. People also tend to ignore the fact that Ireland is cheaper than every other eurozone country for items such as clothing and footwear. The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, is right to draw attention to the fact that damage is being done by the rip-off Ireland catch-cry. We must strike a balance between the need to name and shame, where appropriate, and to present a balanced picture of our overall level of costs and quality of service.
During the last general election campaign I pulled into a service station where a young fellow was filling a car with petrol. I was pleased that he recognised me and he mentioned in passing that his parents were voting for me. He said he would vote for me too if I reduced the price of insurance. I explained as patiently as I could that much work had been done but it would take most of two years before there was any substantial improvement.
A lot done, more to do.
He said that was no good and that he had a customer who promised that if he was elected, he would reduce it straight away.
Was it Deputy Breen?
I will not name anybody. In any event, he indicated that in view of the fact that somebody else was prepared to deliver the goods immediately he would vote for them. In the excitement of the election campaign I forgot all about it until about six months later when I was back at the petrol station and the same fellow was filling a car with diesel. He told me that I was right, that it cannot be done in six months, but that was no good to me in the short term, no more than it is instructive that the problem highlighted by Fine Gael has short-term political advantages. I acknowledge there is a major job to be done in respect of consumer protection, and the Government is committed to doing that.
Consumers, many of whom enjoy increased spending power in an expanding economy, want to be sure that they are paying a fair price and getting value for money for the goods and services they purchase. Such things matter not only to consumers but are critical in ensuring that our economy remains competitive. The modern consumer operates under increasing time pressures in a fast-moving world and is sometimes faced with an ever-expanding choice of product from a vast array of retailers, some of whom they never see or meet face to face by virtue of the possibilities opened up by on-line shopping. In other circumstances, the consumer is frustrated when confronted by a single service provider offering little or no choice and a take it or leave it approach to doing business. There are many vulnerable consumers in society who deserve protection by law from the predatory instincts of a minority of traders who seek to profit from that vulnerability.
The most effective way to positively impact on price levels in the interests of ordinary consumers is to facilitate effective competition, and however unfashionable it may have become to say it, where choice exists the consumer can benefit and at the same time influence both price and business practices by exercising that choice in an informed manner.
Exercising choice, however, is only part of the equation. It is the responsibility of the regulatory framework to protect the consumer in circumstances where choice does not exist or cannot be exercised or where, for example, the choice is misrepresented or the consumer is otherwise misled by an unscrupulous trader. Where choice does not exist, we must ensure a regulatory regime that guarantees fair competition and allows others into the market to provide the choice that customers want and deserve.
Consumers must have access to fair and impartial information that allows them to exercise their choice in an informed manner. There must be in place a comprehensive and easily understood body of consumer protection law. I do not believe it will be possible to put that in place in the political context. Consumers must know their rights and they must have easy access to redress when those rights are denied. There has to be an adequate sanctions regime against unscrupulous traders who break the law and take consumers for granted. It is not sufficient to focus only on the national picture. We must also have regard to EU and worldwide developments so that we play our part in protecting and informing our consumers wherever and however they shop.
Consumers of their nature are a disparate group. We are all consumers in one way or another but we rarely act in cohort and are rarely seen as an effective lobby when it comes to influencing decision makers. That has to change. Consumers should be given a voice and a means by which that voice can be heard. Consumers should have the power and influence to impact on decision making across the entire spectrum of society. In particular, consumers must be given the opportunity to influence law-making in Ireland. There is a huge responsibility and obligation on the shoulders of business who must learn to value a satisfied customer and understand that giving value for money makes good business sense. Customers who have not got value for money will not return or encourage others to do so.
The Government is tackling the consumer agenda on all these fronts. Legislation is in place which ensures that clear price information is provided for consumers prior to making a decision to purchase goods. Traders who do not display prices in the required manner are liable to prosecution. We have reviewed the level of fines for breaches of consumer legislation and, as the Minister informed the Seanad last week, he will shortly introduce legislation to update these and bring them into line with the demands of a modern economy. That is something Deputy Hogan's Bill sets out to do.
The Department is engaged in a comprehensive review aimed at the consolidation of all existing consumer protection legislation, which is spread across a large number of statutes. This is a major project overseen by a steering group that includes representation from the Attorney General's office.
The Competition Authority has the resources and autonomy to investigate the reasons for price levels which do not seem justifiable and report publicly on its findings. The authority is conducting studies of the banking and insurance sectors as well as the market for professional services. I expect these studies to be completed shortly. The authority has the necessary powers to investigate price fixing and other anti-competitive practices. Our priority is to ensure the removal of unwarranted restrictions on competition in all sectors of the economy.
Ireland is also participating in international developments aimed at protecting consumer interests. In May this year the Tánaiste chaired the European Competitiveness Council, which reached political agreement on the proposal for a directive on unfair commercial practices and confirmed the European Parliament's agreement on the regulation on consumer protection co-operation. The Council also noted the report of the Irish Presidency's successful conference on Building Consumer Confidence in the European Online Marketplace held in Dublin Castle on European Consumer Day, 15 March.
The regulation on consumer protection co-operation due to come into force in October 2006 is a new law which will remove barriers to information exchange and co-operation between national consumer enforcement authorities. It will empower the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs and other enforcement bodies to seek and obtain action from their counterparts in other member states on behalf of Irish consumers.
I mentioned our domestic review of consumer law. This project will dovetail with the implementation of the unfair commercial practices directive, a broad ranging European Union initiative which seeks to establish a single, common, general prohibition of unfair commercial practices distorting consumers' economic behaviour across the EU.
The Government is also determined to ensure consumer law keeps pace with the rapid rate of economic development, new trading mechanisms and new behavioural trends. Key to this is the work of the consumer strategy group established last March to advise on the development of a national consumer policy. The terms of reference of the group are sufficiently broad to allow it to comment and make recommendations on any aspect of the consumer agenda. Its work constitutes the most radical and comprehensive review of consumer policy ever undertaken.
The group has focused on the key principles guiding the consumer agenda, namely, access, safeguards, advice and support, redress, consumer power, and business and the consumer. A public consultation on consumer issues was held and individual consumers, representative organisations, businesses and other interested parties were invited to contact the group with views and submissions by 9 July. In the performance of its role the group is also carrying out a range of activities, including studies, which investigate issues of special concern. These studies are intended to identify areas in which policy intervention could lead to improved consumer access, choice and redress.
I expect the group's recommendations to form the basis of national consumer policy over the coming years and look forward to receiving its final report, which is due to be provided to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, at the end of the year. The report and recommendations of the consumer strategy group will be considered once they are received early in the new year. Without prejudging the report, it is the Minister's intention to bring forward at an early date proposals for the development of a national consumer policy based on the report and recommendations of the group.
In circumstances in which an expert group is about to produce a report in which the experience of other countries in implementing consumer policy is being taken into account, it is clearly inappropriate and premature to introduce legislation in this area. With the greatest respect to Deputy Hogan, the legislation before us does not have the benefit of the wide-ranging consultations undertaken by the consumer strategy group this year.
The main aim of the Consumer Rights Enforcer Bill 2004 is to establish an independent consumer rights enforcer, a stand-alone office with its own staff and budget. I am interested in the proposed procedure for the appointment of the enforcer who, I understand, would be recommended by the Oireachtas and appointed by the Minister.
The appointment would be made in a manner similar to the appointment of the Ombudsman.
The current Director of Consumer Affairs is an independent statutory officer appointed by the Public Appointments Service. As a general principle, appointments made in this manner are much more likely to find favour outside the Oireachtas than the Deputy's proposal. Members frequently complain that answerability to Parliament is not sufficient across a wide range of issues. If we were to stray into the area of making individual appointments in the manner proposed, we would run into much more trouble than it would be worth. I have never encountered a complaint concerning the independence of the current Director of Consumer Affairs position arising from the manner in which the appointment was made, nor does one, in general, find complaints with regard to the independence of the office. Despite being funded by the Department, the office operates with complete statutory independence.
Ultimately, the inclusion of a number of provisions in the Bill will be helpful because I expect it will be necessary to introduce legislation when the consumer rights group reports. This legislation will be informed by the findings of the expert group and by anyone else who is prepared to be constructive.
I am glad to be helpful because we do not have anything in place at present.
It would be premature to proceed with the Bill given that a report on the matter is only a few months from completion. I acknowledge, however, that there is considerable merit in proceeding with legislation at an appropriate time.
The Bill would simply rename the office of the Director of Consumer Affairs which already exists as an independent statutory office under section 9(5) of the Consumer Information Act 1978. The office's budget for 2004 is €3.9 million. The Bill also seeks to provide for certain functions to be undertaken by the new consumer rights enforcer. Many of these functions are already undertaken by the Director of Consumer Affairs.
The Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs has powers and legitimacy. To date in 2004, 28 traders have been successfully prosecuted and a further eight cases are pending. I accept Deputy Perry's point that consumers need to be advised of their rights and unscrupulous business people need to be advised that this enforcement procedure is in place. Many people would be surprised to learn of the number of prosecutions this year. Thousands of investigations are undertaken each year and the director's inspectors work closely with traders towards achieving her objective of compliance with legislation.
I draw particular attention to the results of price surveys, which the Director of Consumer Affairs has already published on products such as petrol, potatoes, over-the-counter medicines, compact disks and drink price increases coinciding with major sporting and social events. These provide valuable information for consumers wishing to make informed purchasing decisions.
As I stated and the Minister informed the Seanad last week during a positive debate on competitiveness and consumer protection policy, we have reviewed the level of fines for breaches of consumer legislation and the Minister will shortly introduce legislation to update these to a maximum of €3,000. Furthermore, one of the recommendations made by the Director of Consumer Affairs in her submission to the consumer strategy group in July was that the consumer should be represented in the social partnership process — Deputy Hogan also referred to the representation of consumers. The director noted that it was striking that the third pillar had a wide range of organisations but did not include consumers. The Department's representative makes contributions on consumer matters at the anti-inflation group established under Sustaining Progress.
The Department has worked closely with the Central Statistics Office, the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, the Consumers' Association of Ireland and Forfás on the issue of price transparency. This resulted in the publication for the first time last July of the CSO consumer prices average price analysis for Dublin and outside Dublin for May 2004. The Department proposes to continue to work with all interested parties to consider if there is further potential to build on this initiative so as to enhance price transparency for consumers and empower them to seek out the best value possible.
In so far as the Consumer Rights Enforcer Bill seeks to go beyond the powers and functions already vested in the Director of Consumer Affairs, it may constitute nothing more than a piecemeal approach to addressing legitimate concerns and interests of consumers.
The Government has been instrumental in moving the consumer agenda to centre stage and recognising its importance in the context of the modern, progressive and confident economy, which has developed in Ireland over recent years. As a direct result of the Government's initiative, the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority was established with a specific consumer focus. The new consumer director within the regulatory authority has already underlined her determination and commitment to represent the interests of consumers in a positive way. For the first time, consumers of financial products have a new champion, a statutory officer, whom they can approach if they feel their rights are being denied. A specific means of redress and source of valuable guidance and information is available to them when seeking advice on the purchase of financial products. Members will acknowledge that the banks were untouchable and theirs was not a consumer-friendly approach. This is a new departure in Ireland, a new focus on the consumer and an indication of the Government's commitment to protecting and representing consumer interests.
The Government has successfully tackled the issue of high insurance costs, which had become an increasing burden for industry and had driven some consumers to the point of despair. The Government's insurance reform programme is an example of the benefits to be derived from determined and concerted action. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board represents a new consumer focused approach to dealing with insurance claims. I acknowledge the difficulties referred to by Deputy Hogan in this area, which I hope will be resolved shortly. Before the board became fully operational in July 2004, both business and the individual purchaser of insurance products already began to reap the benefits of reduced costs and lower premia. No matter what figures are relied upon, the news is of huge savings. Some estimates place the saving to motorists of reduced premia at approximately €300 million this year. Official figures published by the Central Statistics Office at the start of the summer showed a 14.5% reduction in motorcar insurance between June 2003 and June 2004. A separate survey of motor insurance carried out by the Automobile Association showed an average 22% fall in motor premia over the previous 12 months. There is equally good news for businesses as liability insurance, which cost business approximately €840 million a year, has fallen by at least 20%. This is an additional potential saving of €168 million because of these reforms. In total, the reform process is expected to generate approximate savings of €460 million to consumers in 2004.
Consumer costs are important in their own right but are also as much a part of the competitiveness agenda as are the costs to business and industry. For overseas industry seeking a location for new investment, business costs are only part of the equation. Consumer costs also feed into the mix of employees' welfare and expectations. Consequently, issues surrounding consumers' welfare must be approached with the same urgency and commitment as the general competitiveness agenda. Analysis shows Ireland has become an expensive place to live and Irish consumers are paying more for many basic commodities than our European neighbours. A report commissioned from Forfás by then Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, first highlighted this in a stark way. "Rip-off Ireland" may be a term coined by the media, but as a perception among members of the public and industry, it is real and merits a positive and proactive approach on the part of the Government.
Someone better say that to Deputy O'Donoghue.
All businesses cannot be tarred with the same brush. The efforts of many to provide real value and service to the consumer must be acknowledged. They have come to appreciate the value of a satisfied customer, seeing a professional approach to quality customer service as a key part of business strategy. The logic of such an approach is irrefutable. A satisfied customer will obviously return when needing to purchase an identical product or service in the future. A satisfied customer will recommend a supplier of a product or service to both family and friends, helping a business to grow.
However, there are also product and service providers who through greed have sought to exploit the vulnerability of many consumers. There are those who feel the need to profiteer on the back of increased spending power in some sections of society. Some unscrupulous traders ignore their obligations under the law. Some businesses seek to capitalise on the lack of competition either sectorally or geographically. These businesses have created rip-off Ireland. They must be the targets of new laws and regulations, subject to penalties imposed by statute or the ultimate sanction, the loss of business because of consumers exercising their discretion to bring business elsewhere. Consumers must not under estimate the power in exercising the choice to shop elsewhere. The consumer can also exercise choice without bringing their business elsewhere. Within the same shop, choices can be available between different brands, different product sizes and packaged and unpackaged goods. The key to exercising that choice is information.
A consumer, armed with the necessary information to determine which product represents best value for money, can exercise discretion in a positive way, influencing not only prices but quality of service. A variety of regulations exist requiring different traders to display the price of goods or services on offer. The unit pricing regulations introduced by the Government 18 months ago are one example. These require all retailers, whether they sell over the counter, by mail order or on-line, to display the price of all products available in the store or catalogue. When the goods in question are packaged and sold by weight or volume, the price per unit must also be displayed. For example, a supermarket shelf displaying different sized tins of beans, must also display not just the price per tin but, the equivalent price per kilogram in respect of each tin. With liquids, for example, washing up liquid, a price per carton and an equivalent price per litre in respect of each, carton, must be shown.
This extremely valuable information allows the consumer to instantly decide which product size represents the best value for money. The requirement applies to all packaged goods sold by weight or volume. The director of consumer affairs enforces the law. He carries out monthly surveys in compliance with the legislation and will be happy to hear from consumers who feel their local shop is not complying with display requirements. Restaurants, pubs, petrol stations and hairdressers are among those traders in respect of whom price display orders exist to help the consumer make informed choices. The value of such information should not be under estimated. I urge consumers to exercise choice where choice is available.
Consumers are a disparate lot but I recognise the work of the Consumers Association of Ireland, an effective voice on consumers' behalf for many years. Its task has not been an easy task. However, the value of its contribution and the difficulty in creating a coherent voice for consumers must not be under estimated. There may be different priorities and concerns for a consumer who experiences difficulty when purchasing an airline ticket, for example, than for a consumer who feels he or she has been charged an excessive price for basic foodstuffs at the local grocery counter. While I do not wish to prejudge the important work undertaken by the consumer strategy group, a key element of consumer strategy is to harness the voice and represent the interests of all consumers in a coherent way. Someone must speak with conviction and authority on behalf of consumers, not just when seeking redress for wrongs inflicted, but when making new laws and regulations.
I have outlined the comprehensive measures and policies already in place and envisaged, both domestically and internationally, to protect and represent consumer interests. Critically, I have outlined the work of the consumer strategy group which will shortly report to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, and can be expected to address any gaps or inadequacies in existing consumer policy. I expect the group to suggest some radical measures, bringing the consumer agenda in Ireland on to a new plane. This agenda cannot be prejudged and for that reason I oppose the Bill.
I am now more convinced that no Member should be forced to speak for 40 minutes. Whatever a Member has to say, it should not take that long.
Agreed.
I welcome the Bill and commend Deputy Hogan and the Fine Gael Party for introducing it. As Christmas approaches, the Bill's provisions are welcome and timely, deserving the support of all Members. It is not as if they are outrageously expensive or will bring the free world as we know it tumbling down. The Bill is modest but will make a great difference to people who are trying desperately to stretch limited incomes as far as possible, with no help from the Government.
There is a clear need to beef up the role of the Office of Director of Consumer Affairs. The director has done an excellent job and very worthy work in recent years in highlighting malpractice by retailers. Unfortunately, she has not had much power to do anything about the problems. Naming and shaming and limited fines are well and good — this is not a reflection on the person or the office — but the question arises as to the degree of power the office holds. The director told us a week after an international rugby match that seven pubs ripped off the public. While closed circuit television does not prevent crime it shows who committed it. Action can be taken only after a wrong has been done, and in the case I mentioned the pubs involved denied that they ripped off people. That is an incredible system to have in a country that claims to be on top of its game in terms of technology and how it operates.
For too long the only weapon at the discretion of the Director of Consumer Affairs has been to name and shame. It is time to give the office much more competence in the area. I welcome the change of role outlined in this Bill to make the office a corporate enforcer with the power to impose fines on those who breach the guidelines. The Bill refers to only one aspect of a much wider problem. People constantly ask who is the consumer. I recall the question posed in school "Who is my neighbour" and the answer given, "My neighbour is all mankind". That could apply to consumers. All mankind are consumers.
Consumers are insufficiently protected here. There is anecdotal evidence that this is an expensive country. There is evidence to prove that Ireland ranks near the top of the list of the world's most expensive places to live. One would scarcely have thought a few years ago that, in comparison with a shopping basket in Ireland, one in Nice would be cheaper and that one could live on less money there. A few years ago Nice was an expensive place to visit, but that is no longer the case. Ireland is now a very expensive place to visit.
The economic boom has brought jobs, prosperity and opportunities but has also delivered growing disparities between rich and poor, aided by profiteering by large companies, which have consistently exploited the Irish consumer. This must come as a shock to visitors from Germany, whose quality of life was far more developed than ours when we entered the European Union, if they have not read about the cost of living here. In the four years up to May of this year the cost of goods and services rose by 22% above the EU average, putting Ireland on a par with Finland. Restaurants and pubs were the main contributors, accounting for 25% of the total in the five years up to January 2004. I saw a chef on television recently who said that after serving a meal and paying the various charges he made €4 profit. If I was making €4 profit after sweating over a hot stove from 4 o'clock in the afternoon I would not be in that kitchen the following night.
An extraordinary financial burden is placed on the average working family, which is especially felt at this time of year, in the run-up to Christmas. The Minister of State said that the Minister intends to put certain measures in place, but if his record in the Department of Health and Children is any measure he will commission a plethora of reports but will do nothing. I am not holding my breath waiting for reform in his Department. The Government is culpable. Its decisions and those of its agents on VAT, price increases and State regulated goods and services, such as electricity and telecommunications, have added almost 8% to the rate of inflation over the past five years. That is an incredible figure. Those charged with protecting the consumer allow the circumstances in which retailers can rip us off.
We do not need to travel outside the island to compare and contrast prices for a range of consumer goods. Supermarket chains in the North that have premises in the South sell exactly the same goods at significantly lower prices in the North. A packet of biscuits in Tesco in Newry is much cheaper than it is in Tesco ten miles down the road in Dundalk. These are fundamental differences. As I listened to the men make their contributions tonight I thought this debate should be limited to women.
That is sexist.
It is sexist but I have never made an excuse for that.
The Deputy may be sexy but she is also sexist.
If the wives of the Deputies who spoke tonight had made those contributions they would have made more significant points. That the busiest Sainsburys store in Europe is the one in Newry says something about how shoppers flood across the Border in search of more reasonable prices than those available in their own towns. Dunnes Stores recently refused to appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business to explain why consumers are charged more for groceries in their shops in the Republic than in the North. It is ridiculous that one of the largest supermarket chains in the country is not prepared to justify its prices to public representatives. This is symptomatic of the public's inability to ask questions of major retailers, and I hope this debate will seek to redress part of that problem.
Dunnes Stores argued about its unhappiness with elements of the groceries order regarding below cost selling and so justified its refusal to come before the committee. If Dunnes Stores has a problem with legislation it should have been at the committee. Instead, the company, which holds almost a quarter of the grocery market used this as an excuse to explain why products for sale in its shops are 20% cheaper in the North than here. The groceries order introduces such a level of regulation into the sector that it prevents supermarkets entering price wars whereby below cost selling would surely be the death knell for local independent traders who would be unable to compete with large supermarkets. The committee concluded that if those supermarkets had carte blanche to slash prices the prices would not stay at that level. Once competition was eliminated they would return to the old rip-off Ireland. We were all agreed on that. The history of how they operate does not inspire us with confidence. That is the problem with the groceries order.
The Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, was one of the most fervent advocates for the abolition of the groceries order, yet for seven years she was Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and did nothing about it. Similarly with the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, the report was left on her desk to be implemented when she took office seven years ago but she coat-tailed it and did nothing until, under pressure from the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, she had to set up the board.
Large supermarkets argue that insurance costs, wages, commercial rates and recycling charges contribute to the prices they charge, yet insurance costs have fallen recently, a point on which I agree with the Minister of State, and they should fall further when the Personal Injuries Assessment Board is established. While these retailers continually explain why they cannot introduce lower prices, they never tell us about the difference in the price. We have yet to get to that and it is part of the ongoing investigation. They are quickly running out of excuses for charging exorbitant prices. Just as it did with insurance, the committee will continue to ask the questions and will eventually get answers.
It also appears that changes are to be made to the retail planning guidelines and I am completely opposed to that. I have a friend who has a small supermarket in a local community. He has told me that he is quite happy with his share of the market. It is not Dunnes Stores, Tesco or Aldi, but he is happy as someone will always forget a pint of milk, bread, butter or something else. It is a drop-in service. If we bring in huge supermarkets on the outskirts of towns to which the motorway leads and we have to shop in these out of town experiences, then my friend will not survive. If I forget to buy a pint of milk, he will not be there. That is not good for the community. The country has to be about community as well as the economy. We must also take much more than low prices into consideration. Issues of food quality and traceability are becoming important, just as other matters such as community, choice and availability are central to the debate. If people are even offered very low prices, then there is a sector of society that simply wants a particular product. Such people will go for quality, presentation and will pay more, so it is not just about price.
More needs to be done in the area of consumer affairs than what is contained in this Bill. However, it is a start and an effort to introduce change in an area that badly requires improved consumer protection. Supermarkets should be made to display and sell sweets from an area of the shop, which can be avoided if one wishes to do so. This would be a great help to parents. I remember a campaign about this when Gay Byrne was still on the radio. I think Marks & Spencers decided to take sweets away from the till. That did not last long. Whether it is a large supermarket or a corner shop, consumers cannot get near the till as they are surrounded by sweets. It is very difficult for parents to continue to say no to their children. Parents have enough hassle doing the shopping and yet they are faced with a barrage of pressure at a time when they are most vulnerable. That is exactly why sweets are displayed at that point. They should be sold from a different part of the shop. It is done with alcohol, so why can it not be done with sweets? The sweets display is in front of us and the newspaper on the counter tells us that the biggest killer in the future will be obesity, yet we cannot avoid the sweets.
Why is meat dearer in supermarkets than in small butcher shops? It is this kind of comparison that consumers need. Why is it so hard to find out why food costs more in the Republic of Ireland than 100 miles away in Northern Ireland? We have more agencies to protect the consumer and to ensure that there are no barriers to competition, yet we are less controlled and less informed than ever. Why do we not have individually priced items on our supermarket shelves? The Minister told us tonight that products have to be displayed by weight, volume and everything else. Why can we not have it on the item? Imagine a situation where each time the Minister goes into a shop to buy a shirt, a coat or whatever he has no idea what it will cost until he goes to the till and gets a shock. Why are items on supermarket shelves not individually priced? I am always amazed when surveys claim, for example, that only ten out of 166 Deputies know the price of a litre of milk. If the price was on it, we might all know it.
There is no better enforcer of consumer rights than consumers themselves. Consumers have no idea what their basket will cost them until they get to the till. It usually comes as a surprise because it has usually gone up. Decisions by Government, its agents, regulations including VAT increases, price increases and State regulated goods and services like electricity and telecoms are said to have added more than 8% to the rate of inflation over the last five years. If the people charged with protecting the consumer are allowing the market to behave in such a way, then the phrase associated with shopping in Ireland is now "rip-off". That is the word on the ground, but the word from the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism is that it is all in our minds. We will fork out more of our hard earned cash this Christmas, but more of us are paying by credit card and hoping that by the time that Bill comes, someone somewhere will have done something about interest rates on credit cards, which is another rip-off. When we do this, we should think about the Minister for Arts, Sport, and Tourism and keep repeating to ourselves that it is all in our mind. The next time a Fianna Fáil or PD Deputy comes to our door and tells us that they will rein in their pals and bring inflation under control in order to allow us to feed our family, buy a house and do the things we should be able to do, we should keep saying to ourselves that it is all in our mind.
I welcome this Bill. As it is an Opposition Bill, I know it will not be accepted, although I hope someone listens and recognises that a country should be more about community than economy. People are very hard pressed and any help they can get from legislators will be welcomed.
Debate adjourned.