Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the IFA back before the committee. It is not the first time it has been before us. I have been asking about the consumer and competition Bill for some time. Mr. Bryan will be delighted to hear that there is no need to apply any more pressure. The Taoiseach gave a categoric assurance to me on the floor of the Dáil last week that the Bill would be published in this session. I take him at his word. He was very clear. Normally, on the Order of Business one could get a variety of answers. The Bill is a little bit behind time but I welcome that it will come forward in this session. I understand from having been involved for many years in drafting legislation that there can be delays. One can get legislation to 90% completion very quickly but it is the final 10% that can cause difficulties for the parliamentary counsel. Bills can take time.

I hope when we get the Bill that it is a good one. That is more important. I would rather get a proper Bill following a three-month delay than to get a weak Bill because we rushed matters. I look forward to the publication of the Bill. I have no doubt on foot of what the Chairman said that the committee will have a considered and significant input into the Bill. I agree with the constructive proposal that the committee would table amendments that we had all discussed and agreed. It would lead to that particular pillar in the process being put in place. Significant progress is being made.

I do not think it will make any difference in three or four years' time whether the Bill was three months late if it is the right Bill and is enacted correctly.

Many issues were raised by Mr. Bryan. We would all like to see something happen at European level because of the sheer size of the multiples. It is fair to say that I am not alone on the committee in hoping that not only can we take action at a national level but that we could take action at a European level as well because we sell our products into other countries so we want to get our price there.

An issue which I would like to ask Mr. Bryan to address is one that was raised by liquid milk suppliers. They are very straightforward. One is not adding or subtracting anything in that regard. One is basically providing liquid milk. One goes through a process and the milk is passed on to the retailer on a daily basis. Producers raised with me the power and dominance of the multiples in terms of the unbalanced share of profit of the gross price which the consumer pays. The continued downward pressure of price by the multiples on manufacturers and, in turn, the price they pay for a litre of milk threatens the viability of the production of milk in the winter months. They believe that if the current situation continues, that it is unsustainable and will leave producers with no other option but to cease or reduce winter production.

It is not easy to replace a product such as winter milk. In other words, one cannot bring it in from too far away or it will not be fresh milk. How are the retailers so dominant in this situation? One would think that the processors would have significant control because the liquid milk suppliers are feeding the processors and the processors are feeding the multiples. In recent weeks it has been said that processors in Britain will take the milk out of the south east of this country and bring it over to Britain. Could Mr. Bryan outline from his experience how the multiples are so dominant? Is it because farmers in Northern Ireland have a low cost base for production and that they have a choice of market in this country or in Britain for anything they want to move out of the Six Counties?

Could Mr. Bryan give us an idea of the structure of liquid milk? If we got our dream of a united Ireland and we had one jurisdiction in the State I would imagine that there would not be much profitability in importing liquid milk every day. In such circumstances one would think the supplier and the processor would be in a dominant position. When it comes to liquid milk is the “Northern” factor the reason for giving the multiples the dominance? I heard one processor say that they are asked to tender every year. Obviously, they are not allowed to form a cartel as it would contravene competition law for the processors to get together. I am sure they are not blind to their costs and if all costs were the same one would think that the processor would have to demand a price that would entail a profit. Whether they talk to each other, one would think they would come out with give or take the same price. One would think they would factor into that something that would guarantee profit to the winter milk producers who consistently complain that there is no profit in the business. From his vast knowledge of the industry it is important for Mr. Bryan to explain where the lúb ar lár is or how the retailers have got so much power.

Mr. Bryan covered the retail issue quite well in his submission. A second issue which he might explain, because it affects primary producers hugely, concerns meat factories. My understanding is that if I go to England that I would get a much better quote from factories that operate in this jurisdiction and in England for similar animals. Does Mr. Bryan have an explanation for that? How is it the case that in the United Kingdom factory prices for animals seem to be much higher? Did Mr. Bryan ever take up the issue of the fact that one can drive a lorry with cattle onto a boat in Larne to the United Kingdom without difficulty but if one goes with the same lorry to cross from Dublin or Dún Laoghaire to Britain that it is not possible to do so. However, one can travel back to those ports from Britain with an empty cattle lorry. Has Mr. Bryan ever raised the issue with the people who operate the boats and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine? What is the explanation for the difficulty in getting a lorry on the boat in Dublin or Dún Laoghaire? Even if there is a significant difference in the factory price that would justify the extra transport cost, one cannot avail of it. That is a significant factor.

I understand that the IFA gets a levy that is collected by meat factories and processors. It is a significant source of revenue to the IFA. Could Mr. Bryan outline how much money is involved? Is it an inhibiting factor for the IFA in dealing with meat factories and processors given that they are a source of a considerable amount of funding? Did any factory or processor ever threaten the IFA to refuse to collect the levy if too much pressure was applied or if pickets were put in place to highlight their power in the market? Could Mr. Bryan clarify the issue?