Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for bringing this long-awaited Bill before the House. I understand the complexities involved in trying to bring together so many different facets of law. The Minister is charged here with achieving a very fine balancing act which seeks to ensure the best outcome for the consumer, while respecting the rights of primary producers and processors. It is important that pursuing the best for the consumer does not have unintended consequences, as can often happen.

As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I wish to focus on the grocery goods aspects of the legislation. I was heavily involved in the preparation of the aforementioned committee's report in October 2013, entitled Increasing Equity and Transparency in Producer, Processor and Retailer Relationships. The committee, under the chairmanship of Deputy Andrew Doyle, put a significant amount of work into engaging with all of the key stakeholders and hearing their points of view. Some stakeholders were more giving of their time than others. On the large multiples side, unfortunately Dunnes Stores was unwilling to participate and discuss matters with the committee. However, we had a very robust debate with the other big multiples. In fairness, we listened to a lot of their concerns and issues.

A couple of articles were published at the time of the publication of the committee's report, one of which referred to the committee as one which was "stuffed with Fine Gael farmers" and which was behind a new quango. That took a very specific view of our work. The underlying suggestion was that a Deputy coming from an agricultural background might not have the best interests of the consumer at heart. The author never outlined whether he had any links with the retailers or the multiples or whether his views were purely altruistic. As the committee chairman pointed out in response to that article, having farmers on an agricultural committee is not the worst crime in the world, no more than having teachers on an education committee or doctors on a health committee. Our background means that we would be very aware of some of the difficulties being experienced by primary producers.

Such problems were clearly manifest before Christmas for fruit and vegetable producers. We saw primary producers being put under enormous pressure, with carrots and Brussels sprouts being sold for a few cent, far below the cost of production.

Those primary producers had to take the hit on that because of a price war. That kind of protection is required because otherwise such people will go out of business and will not be there to produce the food. Consumers need to realise that food is different from other commodities and that security of food supply cannot be taken for granted. My grandfather, Lord have mercy on him, always used to say: "When you're doing a deal with somebody there has to be something in it for all sides of the bargain." Everybody needs to come away with a little bit of something, but if one side is squeezed so much that there is nothing left for them, they might not be there to do the deal next year.

The horsemeat scandal highlighted an element of that to a point. A large retail multiple was selling six own-brand burgers in a box for €1.20, which is 20 cent each. That large multiple informed the large producer that it needed burgers for 8 cent each, which is what they would pay. If the processor did not provide that, the multiple would go elsewhere. The large multiple may have been surprised and shocked to find out afterwards that the burgers contained horsemeat. It may not have known that directly, but it must have known that it is not possible to produce a beef-burger for 8 cent. Therefore, the multiple had to know it, albeit inadvertently. We need to address that kind of issue.

The below-cost sale of drink as a loss-leader is a product of a previous drive that was supposed to be pro-consumer. In many respects, however, it turned out to be much more pro-retailer and has left us with a significant amount of difficulty.

I welcome a lot of what is in this Bill and I look forward to the detailed work that will happen on Committee Stage. I am disappointed there is no ombudsman as part of the legislation, but I accept the Minister's point about the costs involved and the risk of duplication. Nonetheless, we should keep a close eye on what is happening with the adjudicator's position in England which seems to be quite effective, although it is relatively new. As Deputy McEntee said, we should keep an open mind as to how these things will work out in future.

To go back to our report, we want a fair balance between all three parts of the equation. The retailer must be able to make a margin, while the processor and primary producer are in a vulnerable position as price takers for their product, but they need a fair margin to survive. That is also in the consumers' interest in the long run.

I welcome the merger of the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority along with the extra powers being given to the new merged entity. I accept what the Minister said in his speech earlier, that prices will continue to be set by hard negotiations. Everybody wants to be able to do a fair deal and they do not mind hard negotiations once the deal on the table is agreed. The Bill provides a back-up so that everyone knows there will be implications for anti-competitive behaviour. Breaking competition law can have a significant impact on all consumers, although it may sometimes be hidden. Our national competitiveness, which ultimately leads to job creation, is well protected under these new measures.

I commend the Minister for his work in bringing this long-awaited Bill before the House. I look forward to see it progressing through the Oireachtas, as well as seeing how its various aspects will ensure a fairer system whereby everyone will be protected in future.

See this speech in context