Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the publication of this important Bill. Members of this House are particularly well served by the Oireachtas Library, and its staff have excelled themselves on this occasion. Their Bill digest has been of great assistance to us in providing background information.

The Bill has three main functions, namely, the amalgamation of two existing agencies into the new competition and consumer protection commission, whose abbreviation, CCPC, makes it sound like the old Russian Communist Party; regulations regarding the groceries order; and the issue of media mergers. The initial work on these provisions began under the former Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Mary Coughlan. The legislation will bring Ireland into tandem with most European economies. Indeed, our neighbours in the United Kingdom launched their merged body on 1 April.

I have concerns in regard to some aspects of the Bill, which I hope the Minister will address in his response. The provisions of section 18 allow the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation of the day to direct the CCPC in regard to Government policy and its implications. This raises concerns regarding the ability of the new body to do its job independently in a context where the Government is a major consumer and driver of costs in the State. We cannot have a situation where a Minister might use or abuse these provisions. I do not expect that to happen under this Administration, but if the relevant powers are vague enough, a future Minister might use the provision to stymie the CCPC's independence. It is an issue that needs to be clarified.

On the consumer protection side of things, it is difficult in this time of great change, technologically and economically, for people to keep abreast of consumer rights. Likewise, it is difficult for agencies charged with safeguarding those rights to advise customers. We as consumers are often not fully aware of our rights until we need to call on them, by which time it may be too late. The new agency must be properly resourced to get information across to people. Moreover, it probably needs to do so in a shock tactic type of way given that large companies have many multiples of the promotional and other resources that will be available to this agency at any stage in its ownership. There needs to be some type of level playing pitch to equip and guard consumers in terms of their rights. One of the drivers of this merger was reform of agencies and cost control but, in pursuing those ends, we must ensure we do not damage the ability of the consumer side of the CCPC to keep people fully informed of their rights and obligations.

In regard to the competition side of its remit, we need an agency with teeth and the ability to call out any large organisation or sector within the economy where anti-competitive practices are occurring. If it is to have teeth, the legal protection given to the new body in the legislation must be enforced properly. It requires the powers set out in this Bill and in the 2012 Act to be properly understood. There is no sense in enshrining the types of powers set out in this Bill in law unless we train members of the Judiciary in those powers. We must have people on the Bench who fully understand the consequences and import of these provisions and their potential to assist consumers and smaller companies. It is essential that the Commercial Court is fully resourced and we have a cadre of judges within it who have the ability to implement the powers outlined in this Bill.

On the question of naming and shaming, we must bring the surveys formerly conducted by the National Consumer Agency back into frame in order that consumers can be consulted. Even though the Bill has been in gestation for a long time, the public consultation phase needs to be slightly more robust than it has been. Perhaps in the course of the coming weeks a debate can be initiated to ensure people are aware of what is happening.

An important question is what type of budget the new agency will have. In a situation where two authorities with very different specialties are being merged, there needs to be a robust budgetary process internally that ensures all the functions of the agency are properly resourced. It is important, for example, that the consumer side should get the same types of resources as the competition side. The latter will require a great deal of legal support, which brings me on to the issue of the failure of the Government to tackle legal costs. Nothing is being done to tackle that issue in the Legal Services Regulation Bill. As long as those costs remain as high as they are, it is even more important that the competition side of the new agency is adequately resourced.

In regard to the groceries order, I am concerned at the vagueness in the Bill in terms of the regulations and statutory code. The plan is to give the Minister powers to implement a statutory code and regulations, and we have been given an idea of what those regulations might be. It is unfair, however, to ask the House to debate this Bill without seeing those regulations in advance. There cannot be a proper regulatory impact assessment without having effective regulations in place. While the Minister has given a flavour of what they will be, we really need to see and study them. Perhaps he will indicate whether we might see a copy of them before Committee Stage. There is also cause for concern in the provision that the Minister will have the power under the Bill to introduce new regulations as the process goes along, rather than introducing them all in the context of the Bill. He should at least give us an analysis at this stage as to what types of regulations we can expect.

Deputy James Bannon referred to the utterly unfair playing field that pertains in the grocery market. There is a push on at this time to encourage small and artisan producers in a context where people are increasingly interested in sourcing their food locally. At the same time, however, the large retailers seem continually to be increasing their control and using their commercial prowess to that end. It seems a case of never the twain shall meet, and this Bill does not offer much enlightenment as to how we can protect smaller operators. Businesses worth €50 million plus will be subject to the Bill's provisions, but what about those in the middle, such as the distributors who bring the smaller producer into the larger chain? We need clarity in that regard.

I see the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Andrew Doyle, is in the Chamber. That committee has published a very useful report on unfair pricing practices.

The notion of vegetables being sold for 6 cent, 7 cent or 8 cent does not make sense from either a commercial or a social point of view. We are all aware of that. This type of below-cost selling is going to result in food production in this country being concentrated in the hands of very big operators. Once again, the small guy will lose out. This cannot be encouraged. The legislation before the House must be the first step in preventing that from happening. It must also act as the first line of defence for small producers and allow them to stand up to the larger operators.

In the previous Dáil, the then Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment examined the grocery market over a period of years. It held hearings on the matter and published a great deal of material on the cost prices relating to food and drink. Such prices are higher in Ireland than in other economies. The prices charged here by multiples which serve other economies are higher and those companies seem to make larger profits here. We would be able to obtain a definitive picture in this regard if we could obtain sight of the profits of such companies but we cannot do so because they jealously protect information relating to the amounts of money they make in the Irish consumer market. These prices are charged by the multiples in respect of a range of goods - such as the basic foodstuffs - which people need on a daily basis. It appears that the companies garner much higher profits in this jurisdiction than they do elsewhere.

One of the worst aspects in this regard is that many of the large grocery multiples use alcohol as a magnet to attract people. They entice people to enter their shops by using cheap or, in many instances, below-cost alcohol and then oblige them to pay higher prices than those charged in other markets in respect of basic foodstuffs and commodities. There is a serious problem in this country in the context of alcohol consumption. The one issue we continually dodge and refuse to debate is the role played by large supermarket multiples, particularly in respect of the way in which they use alcohol as a price attractor. Large quantities of alcohol are being sold with very few controls in place. The consumption of such alcohol is giving rise to all sorts of issues relating to antisocial behaviour and vintners and everyone other than those in the sector to which I refer are blamed for this. In the context of public health and competition law, the use of alcohol as both a loss leader and a magnet by means of which to attract people to enter shops before fleecing them when they purchase basic foodstuffs, etc., must be brought to an end. Provision to facilitate this must be made in code of practice and ministerial regulations that are to be introduced.

I must admit that I become nervous when reference is made to statutory codes of practice because they give rise to additional costs and make matters very difficult for small businesses. However, we have faffed about for long enough in respect of the grocery sector. There appears to be an unwillingness to take on that sector. The Bill before the House presents us with an opportunity to do so. I hope the Minister will seize that opportunity. Those in the sector do not respect voluntary codes of practice and tend to ride roughshod over them. I am of the view that a debate is required on this matter.

I will now deal with the issue of media mergers. In that context, our thoughts are with the staff of Landmark Media which publishes the Irish Examinerand many other newspapers and which launched a redundancy programme today. This announcement again shows the vulnerability of our domestic media outlets, particularly at a time of such change with in the media market. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has taken responsibility for this matter and will have the ultimate say - following a review carried out by the new CCPC with regard to any potential media mergers. Will the Minister opposite, Deputy Bruton, either when replying to this debate or on Committee Stage, outline what that process will involve? Will he indicate the kind of issues the new CCPC will examine? What controls will be imposed on the relevant Minister in terms of his or her ability to make decisions on these kind of matters? What support will be given to the Minister of the day? Will there be a court of appeal? These issues are probably dealt with in the legislation but I would appreciate it if the Minister, Deputy Bruton, could outline the position in brief.

The Bill does not focus on the location of the major cost drivers within the economy at present. We debated this matter on Question Time yesterday, which, contrary to what people might have read in this mornings newspapers, did take place. It is evident that the big drivers in terms of costs for businesses are emanating from the State. One such driver is the cost of health insurance. Increases in this regard have been driven by tax increases which were introduced in the most recent budget and which affected 90% of policies. Health insurance companies are continually increasing premia and they state that in doing so they are - in their view - responding to health policy. There is also the fact that costs relating to utilities and electricity are the sixth and seventh highest in the eurozone, depending on whether one's enterprise is an SME or a larger operation. Will the Minister indicate the impact the Bill is going to have on utility costs? Costs relating to waste in Ireland are considerably more than those in competitor EU member states.

It is quite ironic that we are debating the Bill on the day on which the Government is tearing itself apart in respect of the biggest monopoly of them all - Irish Water. There is going to be no competition at all in respect of water. Will the Bill before the House provide protection for citizens who might encounter difficulties in their dealings with Irish Water? In view of the kind of resources available to that company, will the Minister outline the robust role the new organisation - the CCPC - will be given in terms of taking it on?

Another issue which arises relates to rulings handed down by the Competition Authority in the past with regard to how people in various professions can organise themselves. I am aware that a court case is pending in respect of how GPs can organise themselves in order to lobby on their own behalf and obtain basic rights for themselves. I know that the Minister is not permitted to comment on the matter but during the course of this Bill's passage through the Houses, a verdict should be handed down in that case. It is quite unusual for an organ of State to use competition law against an organisation which seeks to represent the collective interests of its members in the context of their terms and conditions. A small cohort of organisations representing GPs, pharmacists and even actors is affected by what is happening in this regard. It strikes me that, in the context of this Bill, the Minister will have an opportunity to address that matter and grant people their rights in the context of freedom to negotiate and bargain. Perhaps he might give some consideration to this issue.

There is already in place a robust body of competition law. There are many elements within the Bill which will enhance that. I wish to pay tribute to the two organisations which are being merged. Both the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency struggled over the years but they did some good work in difficult circumstances. If the new body into which they will be merged is to work, I reiterate that it must be independent of Government. The new body must be able to call out the Government, which is the biggest driver of costs and one of the largest consumers in the State. It must have the legal power and the powers of enforcement required to take on the multiples and also large corporations of any ilk in any sector who run roughshod over consumer rights and who treat those consumers as a necessary evil as opposed to being essential to their interests.

We must use the Bill to inform the large multiples, particularly those which operate in the grocery sector, that they do not run the country. They must also be told that they are valued employers but that their operations must be regulated. At present, these companies appear to be able to do as they like in respect of producers, communities - particularly small, rural ones - and independent retailers. We must be in a position to use the Bill to ensure that we will have a healthy media sector that will be diverse in terms of both content and ownership. In light of this country's literary tradition, it would be ridiculous if, as a result of developments in the media market and technology, voices were concentrated in one area and focused in one direction and if those with literary talent were prevented from having outlets for their work.

I welcome the Bill but there are aspects of it which the Minister must clarify, particularly those relating to the groceries order. As stated earlier, the provisions of section 18 will allow the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation of the day and the Government to direct the CCPC. Will the Minister outline the exact position in that regard? I look forward to his reply.

See this speech in context