Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegations for their informative presentations. I am grateful for the work they put into them.

I was not shocked by what the CCPC said earlier. It is something that I knew was happening because its role is primarily to protect consumers. It was just an add-on to the legislation to subsume the function of a sectoral regulator in a half-hearted way. The CCPC was not given much power by the Government in its remit. It has a different role. I agree with Mr. Healy's presentation that the CCPC was not effective because it was never meant to be effective. It was a cosmetic exercise. The witnesses from the CCPC mentioned the issue of trying to secure evidence. I understand the need for the primary evidence rule to the effect that the people, company or stakeholder affected must bring forward the case. However, nobody scratched themselves too hard to try to assist people.

We are all aware of the power of market concentration invested in a small number of powerful wholesalers and retailers and the way they can do business and how that creates an unequal playing field and unequal bargaining power. The current food supply chain is haphazard and not functioning; it is potluck. It is an age-old problem which must be tackled at transnational or EU level. It cannot be tackled independently. In fairness to Commissioner Hogan, he was a Deputy when this all started so at least he learned in the Oireachtas that this was not going to happen on its own. For once, he did something right.

There were problems in the vegetable market whereby consumers were getting vegetables for a couple of cents. The industry could not survive. That then extended to the market for milk. I do not need to go through the detail in that regard.

I am fascinated that the French have never been subservient to EU law. I have always admired them for that. Our big problem has been that we have accepted everything hook, line and sinker. We were terrified of being caught offside and brought before the European Court of Justice. The French have never given a damn. Mr. McCormack outlined that they took steps and grabbed the ball in order to protect their farmers. The position is that farmers here are getting less than a third of the overall price and, if something does not happen soon, they are not going to survive in any event.

This is the last chance saloon. I look forward to the implementation of the directive. It should have direct effect. There should be no pussyfooting around. It should penetrate down to the legislative chambers here and there should be no diversion. The only thing we should be doing is strengthen it as it comes along.

I understand where IBEC is coming from. Perhaps the witnesses are coming at it from a different perspective. We are coming at it very strongly from an agricultural perspective. I understand the witnesses do not want another layer of bureaucracy. The various points the witnesses set out have merit. Is there a difference of opinion between ICOS and the two farming organisations on how far this should extend? Do I detect that? I noticed both the farming organisations were wondering if they should extend right through the co-operative movement and the full supply chain. Does that include going into the co-operative movement even though the farmers are members of the co-operative movement and making a decision at that level? Does that create a difficulty or am I misreading the situation? Will the witnesses reply to that? Both farming organisations made references in their presentations, some direct and others oblique. I would like clarification on that because it might create a little difficulty in terms of the ICOS model. It might be difficult to implement.