Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Competition and Consumer Protection Bill 2014. The Bill has three main purposes. The first is to amalgamate the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority as part of the Government's programme of rationalisation of State agencies. While it probably makes sense to amalgamate the bodies given that they are both directed to protect consumers, people who have experience of the Competition Authority and its lack of action on serious competition issues across the State will question placing the National Consumer Agency with it. The Competition Authority has completely failed to act to improve competition. I speak in the context of the operation of cartels in the concrete industry and the difficulties that have arisen in that regard. I have read reports that show that the lack of competition in the market could be costing the State approximately €2 billion a year. When we are talking about continuing and increasing austerity, €2 billion is a huge sum. It could be gained for the State if it had a Competition Authority with real teeth and the resources to act on behalf of the State and citizens. The Minister said the new competition and consumer protection commission will be a powerful body with real teeth acting to protect and vindicate consumers' rights. I wonder. While time will tell, the history of the Competition Authority suggests we will be sadly disappointed.

By amalgamating the National Consumer Agency with the authority we are increasing the workload but I do not see a corresponding commitment to providing the resources necessary for the new agency to act on behalf of citizens to ensure that there is fair competition and treatment of consumers. It is a sad lack. As has been said many times in the House, we are great at making regulations and passing laws, but we do very little if anything when it comes to enforcing them. If we only enforced half the laws we have, Ireland would be a much better country for people to build their lives in.

The second aim of the Bill is to implement the recommendations of the advisory group on media mergers. Deputy Wallace has clearly outlined the difficulties within the media in the State. There is little that needs to be added to what he said. While it is perhaps not a matter for the Bill, I have a particular problem. The legislation provides that media mergers should have a new emphasis on media plurality to provide diversity of ownership and content. Would such content include home-produced content? Is that something that could be provided for in the context of media mergers? It is stark to see that only 7% of content broadcast by national media is domestically produced. In France and Canada, where there is very strong legislation, adequate levels of domestically produced content must be produced by national media. Strong industries accompany the legislation in those countries. It may be a matter for another Bill but it is something at which the Government should look. Given his responsibility for jobs, I draw to the attention of the Minister the potential in this regard for growing and developing the cultural sector and creative industries across the State. It is something that could have a huge impact.

The final aim of the Bill is to make provisions on grocery goods and to regulate the operation of the relationship between large multiples and wholesalers on the one hand and producers and consumers on the other. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine which produced a report last year which the Minister referenced in his opening remarks. We called in the report for the introduction of a statutory code of conduct in the groceries sector. During our hearings, we were lucky to have all the multiples with the exceptions of Dunnes Stores come to the committee to give evidence of their views on a code of conduct and whether it should be statutory or voluntary. It will be no surprise to anybody that they wanted a voluntary code. They said that in any event they were totally compliant with all current legislation and that nothing ever went wrong within the groceries sector. Therefore, they concluded that there was no need for a statutory code at all, which is interesting in itself.

We heard contributions from Tesco, the Musgrave Group, Aldi, Lidl and Retail Ireland. It was interesting to hear them all say practically the same thing word for word. It was a rehearsed script the whole way through. I must give credit to the representatives from Aldi who said when they were questioned that they would be happy to comply with whatever code was introduced, whether statutory or not, although their preference was for a voluntary code. They were the only people to say that. It was also interesting during the hearings to hear representatives to say when pushed that their reason for not having a statutory code was that it would place astronomical costs on them in compliance terms. These huge costs would have to be transferred to the consumer.

In Europe the Commission has decided on a voluntary code after examining codes of practice. In the UK the position of Groceries Code Adjudicator, or supermarket ombudsman, has been established. The original report here was published in 2009. One would think they would have worked out the cost of complying with a statutory code but no one could indicate how much it would cost them, or even provide a ballpark figure. It is a facade and an attempt to delay the regulation. It was very interesting to see them trying to stall it.

I was concerned when I read the Bill and saw the Minister had opted for regulation and statutory instrument. The list of provisions to be made through statutory instrument to regulate the relationship between grocers and their suppliers is long. We had hoped for, and the committee had recommended, a statutory code. The Bill states the Minister may if it is appropriate include provisions and the Minister may introduce regulations. This is of concern because we have seen such provisions contained in previous legislation - the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act is the most stark example, but years later nothing has happened. I am concerned these sections may not be enacted.

Last week the committee was briefed by departmental officials on how this would operate and we were reassured. In his speech the Minister emphasised regulations are in the process of being drafted and will be introduced as quickly as possible after the legislation is passed. This is good, but I imagine once the legislation is passed, the retail sector and large multiples will intensively lobby to water down the proposals in the statutory instrument and delay the enactment of various sections which will allow this to happen. The Government must resist this on behalf of consumers and on behalf of the small and medium enterprises throughout the State which are dependent on a fair contract and relationship with the companies they supply.

I do not believe this legislation will add €1 or one cent to anyone's shopping bill. If it costs large multiples with turnovers of up to €1 billion a year €5 million to comply with the Government's code of practice or the regulations, it is a small drop in the ocean compared with their overall income and profitability. It is scaremongering and the Government must resist it to ensure regulations are introduced which provide for a proper and fair relationship to develop between suppliers and grocers.

This always comes back to whether it will be enforced, and this is the big question which hangs over all legislation. We discuss all types of well-intentioned laws which are timely, needed and will set things right. I hope in a few years time we will not be sitting here wondering what happened with regard to the regulations, whether inspections are taking place, whether the new agency is examining compliance and whether cases of non-compliance are being brought to court, not simply to punish people but to change practices and behaviour. We need to be able to state such practices and behaviour have been ruled out once and for all. It is only through proper and rigorous enforcement of the regulations that this can take place.

See this speech in context