Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The witnesses have spoken very strongly against a ban on below-cost selling, citing value for the consumer and we understand the importance of this. I contend, however, that is a false economy because none of us thinks if we managed to buy something below cost in a multiple retailer that the price is not loaded onto some other product in the store. That is a reality in the multiple retailers. I suggest that the consumer is ultimately paying for it on a different product. Our concern is the main agricultural sector, beef, because prices are constantly flatlining. That means farmers are just breaking even or the prices are below the cost of production. Selling below cost depresses prices. If farmers are out of pocket, which they often are and people have set out their situation and their weak position in the food supply chain here, they invariably go to Government for subsidies. That is taxpayers' money. It is a false economy to be allowing big multiple retailers with the power they have to sell below cost. That is just for dairy, horticultural and other produce.

That is only on dairy, horticulture and other produce. We have the same problem with alcohol in this country. Much legislation, in particular the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill, was going to target the small retailer and treat them differently from multiple retailers. They are treated similarly for so many things yet it is a whole other animal in how it operates and the power it wields. I cannot accept that we cannot do something. Our problem will be that we no longer have farmers because they will be fed up with depressed prices or no income. We had this debate in the run up to the budget. Young people have many more options now. We are talking about a whole system that could collapse if the primary producer in beef or dairy or whatever decides to call it a day because of all these other pressures and the lack of recognition of what they are putting into it. Naturally we want to protect the consumer and we are looking at the farmer but it seems that we are not really taking on the multiple retailers and below-cost selling is a case in point.

Another issue I wished to raise, and one which the commission would deal with, is that of cartels and concerted practices, specifically in meat factories. Farmers regularly complain about the prices they are getting in factories, that if they present on a Monday morning at factories throughout this country, they are all getting pretty much the same price. It is an issue I have raised before, including with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. What sort of evidence does the commission need or what investigation has it done into concerted practice or cartels in operation between meat factories throughout this country that is resulting in practically every factory, although not all - I am not saying that every one is in the same system - offering farmers the same price for their beef? Invariably this goes against the farmer. These corporate entities are so big they seem comfortable behind a corporate veil that we provide. We provide them with the structures to trade with limited risks and so on and ultimately, when things go belly up they can go back to Government, whether it is to help a consumer or to enforce rights. These are the people who will march if something is not right. I am not only talking about dairy. It is not just about helping the primary producer. Some of this may be philosophically somewhat outside the commission's sphere but, specifically, what investigation has it done on meat factories? Earlier the commission cited the lack of actionable complaints, and stated that it needs evidence. What sort of evidence does it want people to come forward with? What investigations has it done in its own right? It is a big thing to ask of farmers but if it has webbed feet, waddles and quacks, it is a duck and that is what one must call it. One must find a way of showing this up because it is another problem for farmers which I understand falls within the commission's remit.

On fines, I understand what the commission is saying and the constitutional position. However, what about the concept of penalties and the operation of a groceries regulator that would inflict penalties? The Revenue Commissioners impose penalties and the local authorities impose penalties on people for not having paid household charges. Is that only because it crystalises at a certain point and then one adds on the penalties and it is easier to calculate? Is there not some way that we can try to rein in a total imbalance and an abuse of the corporate veil which goes on in so many realms? We are only discussing multiple retailers here, and I mentioned factories, but it is always the small person who is squeezed. Serious action must be taken or this will continue to land on our doorstep. It is we that look at the people marching on the streets when they feel that big corporations get more consideration. I say that acknowledging that the commission has to deal with the legal system that is there and whatever laws we pass but they are also the experts who can guide us from their practical experience. I would like to see more accountability in this area and I look to the commission. Does it think its powers need to be strengthened or does it need more investigative powers or more forensic expertise or whatever else to get to the bottom of this?

Other than that, it is like an old chestnut that keeps cropping up again and again. We have farmers complaining all over the place. The same story about these problems is being replicated everywhere yet we are still here discussing them and nothing has been done.