Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our visitors and thank them for their powerful presentation.

There has been broad political agreement on this issue from the outset. It was unfortunate that the witnesses did not make a contribution to the deliberations of the joint committee when we dealt with this issue some 18 months ago. At that time, I recall asking the chief executive of one of the large multiples about the type of structure his company had in place. He asked me whether I was suggesting that his company charged "hello" money and told me that any such suggestion should be taken up with the Garda. I gather from conversations with people in the fruit and vegetable sector that this problem occurs regularly. What types of arrangements do the producers have with the various multiples? Do they deal with them as one body or as individual companies?

A vegetable company located not far from my home, which deals with all of the multiples, informs me that it pays a charge to have its products placed on the shelves of X, Y or Z company. If this charge is not paid in advance, the multiples will not sell the company's products, which is not fair. Do the witnesses also pay such charges? What kind of charging arrangements do they have with the multiples? Do they have contracts with A, B, C or D multiple or are they afraid to answer my question on the arrangements in place? On the previous occasion we addressed this matter, it was implied that producers were very much afraid.

This problem is not confined to vegetable growers. Time and again, milk is used as a loss leader in several supermarkets. A customer of five different supermarkets will be charged five different prices for the same carton of milk, which is wrong. I presume the same applies to vegetables.

I agree with Deputy Penrose that the debate on the Competition and Consumer Protection Bill was a lost opportunity. The joint committee's report of 2013 made fair and reasonable recommendations based on the British system that had been introduced in the preceding 18 months. Do the witnesses have evidence on how the British system is working? It has been in place for two and a half or three years. I support the independent adjudicator model adopted in Britain. Has the adjudicator been busy keeping an eye on developments?

I agree that a voluntary code is no good and a statutory mechanism is required. The European initiative about which the Commissioner has spoken recently is very welcome. Most of the large multiples, with the exception of one which did not have the manners to grace the joint committee with its presence in 2013, are based elsewhere in Europe. Is the introduction of Europe-wide regulation, as opposed to an Irish system with less clout, the most appropriate response to this issue? The joint committee noted previously that the profit margins of the large multiples were not available for scrutiny because they have an opt-out clause based on the fact that they have their headquarters elsewhere. Will Europe-wide regulation be required to ensure all angles are covered?

The main issue is the requirement that producers receive a fair price for their products. Profit margins are becoming tighter across the board. A structure must be introduced to ensure everyone is treated in a fair and proper manner. Deputy Penrose referred to the way in which a specific company had been dealing with its employees recently. The witnesses have been subject to certain practices for many years. It is time to act.