Mr. Greg Mulholland:

I thank the Senator for his comments. I am not anti-supermarket in the same way that I am not against pub companies. I am against abusive practices, and we can see a host of abusive practices by pub companies.

Legislation is now in place to deal with some of those practices which are anti-competitive. When any large company gets such a dominant position and has such resources that it can bully everyone else out of business, be they dairy farmers or communities, that is anti-competitive practice. Supermarkets that open up in a market town and encourage the closure of village shops in order that there is no competition clearly represent anti-competitive practice. I am not trying to put the genie back in the bottle. There are those in the UK, and they are almost all licensees, who would say it would be great if we could turn the clock back to when supermarkets were not allowed to do this and we had off-licences and off-licences off-sales of alcohol but that is not going to happen. We must be realistic. It is a bit like the smoking ban, which most people think is a positive development, although it has damaged some pubs. That ban will not be reversed either. It is anti-competitive to sell alcohol below cost, to sell it at a cheaper price than bottled water. That is irresponsible and immoral. If people are playing fair and the price comes down to competition, that is great, but when that is not the case and such a strategy is deliberately used simply because people can afford to do so, that is not great. It is not competitive and it is not proper business.

Regarding my comments about supermarkets, particularly the imposition of supermarkets in a building that was a pub and often one that has been there for many years and was wanted by a community, one can say that is the supermarket's fault but it is not as it comes down to the weakness of the British planning system, which is what we have been saying. Companies will exploit weaknesses in law and regulation, which is why we need to tighten up, improve and change the law and regulation. I am happy to get a good priced, decent quality, bottle of wine at a supermarket, so that is not an issue. The issue is that if instead of encouraging young people, as they are growing up, to go out with their father, mother or grandfather to enjoy a pint in a pub in a sociable responsible atmosphere, we go down the route of having very cut-price alcohol sales, which is simply seen as a means to get intoxicated and is not associated with sociable atmosphere, that can be dangerous. That does not represent competition. It is not what the supermarkets may intend. The licensed trade in every country is always the most regulated sector of business, and it should be. The supermarkets are not sufficiently considering the amount of alcohol that they retail. We must be honest about that. I do not want to stop them selling alcohol, nor do I support a high minimum price in the way that some of the health lobby do to have punitive pricing. The evidence shows that does not make a big difference to problem drinkers. That is not the way forward either. However, we need to stop below-cost selling of alcohol and in the UK we certainly need to deal with the planning issues and those issues are related to planning rather than being anti-supermarket. It will mean that people will get the chance to have a say if they want their pub to be turned into a supermarket without it being decided in two head offices of two giant companies both based hundreds of miles away. Such strategies are anti-community and often anti-competitive.