Customers and businesses are being charged rip-off premiums by the insurance industry. This is squeezing incomes and leading to the closure of businesses throughout the State. The scale of the insurance industry rip-off is paralleled only by the scale of the Government's inaction in failing to tackle the escalating costs and the malpractice within the industry, of which there is probably no better example than the practice of price discrimination that punishes loyal customers when they renew their premiums.

My insurance company, Liberty Insurance, recently quoted me a price of €856 to renew my policy. I did what we all should do and shopped around. I phoned the company and asked whether that was the best price it could offer. I was told that it could reduce the price slightly and that its best price was €814. However, when I entered the same details into the company's website, I was quoted €571, a reduction of €280 or 33% on the offers I received over the phone or in my renewal quotation.

This practice, known as dual pricing, is about punishing loyal customers when they renew their policy. It is a widespread scam in the industry and is costing consumers hundreds of euros each year without them even knowing it is happening. These companies exploit customers who do not know about dual pricing. They rely on the loyalty of customers and use behavioural data and dual pricing algorithms in their systems to charge extortionate prices and push up their profit margins. Everyone with an insurance policy will have to renew it in the next 12 months and I encourage them to shop around and check online. Price discrimination is widespread in the insurance market. It is systemic, completely unjustifiable and flies in the face of the Consumer Protection Act 2007. It harms the interests and welfare of consumers. It is carried out without transparency, penalises loyalty and disproportionately hits vulnerable and low-income customers. It is a rip-off on a vast scale, but nothing is being done here to stop it.

In spite of all the dysfunction across the water in Britain, the Financial Conduct Authority there has launched a major investigation into the practice of dual pricing in the insurance industry after it found that customers renewing their policies were charged as much as 70% more than first-time customers. That is the loyalty premium the industry levies on customers here. In contrast, however, the Government has done nothing to end this practice, penalise the industry or give workers and families a break. Yesterday, I wrote to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, and the Governor of the Central Bank to ask that they carry out an immediate investigation into the practice of price discrimination by the insurance industry. Will the Ministers for Finance and Business, Enterprise and Innovation support my call for an immediate investigation into the scam of dual pricing? Will the Government support that call and implement any recommendations?

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue, which was also raised by Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin during Question Time earlier. It is undoubtedly the case that the Government has been particularly active in this area. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy D'Arcy, has implemented a wide range of measures to seek to control this issue. Most recently, the Government brought in the Judicial Council Act which will lead to greater consistency in awards. We reformed the legislation governing the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, PIAB, to make it easier to settle without expensive legal procedures. There is a greater focus by the courts and the Garda on fraud in the area. We passed legislation to improve data collection by the Central Bank. This week, the Central Bank took steps against brokers in respect of some of the ways in which they behave in the market.

I am glad to inform the Deputy that the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation has asked the CCPC to study activities in the insurance industry, including those of brokers. There is no doubt that some practices in the industry are not satisfactory. Improvement will be brought about through the greater transparency, which is being demanded, the higher level of scrutiny of industry practices, which the commission will undertake, increased data collection and more oversight by Oireachtas Members of what is happening within the sector. The Government is not content with what has been done. As discussed at a recent Cabinet committee meeting, a review is being carried out to see whether we could introduce further measures to play our role more effectively.

There is no doubt that insurance costs are a significant challenge. We need more transparency and better competition in the sector. We are also aware that some insurers have withdrawn from the market and we need to ensure the presence of diverse players in the market is maintained. I have had the opportunity to use very good websites that allow those renewing insurance to look at other offers available on the market. Insurance customers should always shop around.

Much of the Minister's reply did not address the core issue I raised. I have previously raised many issues relating to scams and rip-offs in the insurance industry, but my question pertains to dual pricing in particular. I gave the example of my policy renewal and the €280 difference in pricing depending on whether I got the quote online or a renewal quote from the company's head office. The company thinks I will pay the higher premium because it uses an algorithm involving price sensitivity and data mining to prey on customers' loyalty. I am not the only person who has experienced this practice. A 21-year-old constituent of mine got a quote from Liberty Insurance of €5,160, which is an extortionate and rip-off price. She phoned the company and asked whether that was the best it could do. The staff member confirmed that it was so. She then contacted me. When I entered her details into Liberty Insurance computer system, it returned a quote of €3,857. That is €1,300 less than the cheapest price the company told her it could offer. That is an example of dual pricing. It is wrong and anti-consumer. Companies are using an algorithm in their systems that preys on the vulnerability of people renewing their premiums.

It must be stamped out. It has been stamped out across the water. There is a major investigation. I have written to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and to the Central Bank. I am asking the Minister to state clearly his position not only broadly but about issues in the insurance industry. Will he stand up and be counted and say this rip-off must end? Will he back this investigation and implement the recommendations that flow from it?

I know the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission legislation very well and it has very strong powers to investigate practices that would be either unfair or, to go further, anti-competitive. It has the experience, well beyond that of either the Deputy or myself, to identify those practices. No doubt the Deputy is drawing its attention to dual pricing as one of the many features of pricing policies about which many consumers within the insurance sector are unhappy. This will be examined by people who are expert in examining markets like this. I assure the Deputy that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission will be rigorous and it has all the powers necessary to do that.

Increasingly, we are seeing in many of these service sectors the need to emphasise switching opportunities. I know it has been made easier to switch in insurance but, hopefully, this study will identify additional measures that can be introduced to the market. However, the Deputy will appreciate that I am not in a position to endorse any one particular change the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission might recommend but-----

The Minister is in government.

The Government has not asked the commission to investigate dual pricing.

-----I assure him that, undoubtedly, his concern will be undoubtedly among those that will be examined by the commission.