Mr. Seán Murphy:

I thank the Chair and members. As for how we are monitoring compliance with the regulations, as our opening statement has pointed out, it was initially a case of introducing the regulations and allowing businesses to get used to them and come into compliance because the requirements within the regulations themselves require businesses to take some proactive measures in terms of identifying compliance officers, engaging with us and ensuring the contracts they have are in compliance with what is required within the ranks themselves.

I then moved, on a second phase, to our division, namely, the consumer protection division of which I am the director. Over the past couple of months we have had director-led inspection teams, that is, I have led those teams and we have engaged with the regulated grocery goods undertakings, RGGUs. What I can say now is their business models are different. This might go back to the point that was asked about. Different business models reflect the different structures they have within the country itself. There are different distribution models, delivery and even invoice processing. They have different ways of doing it. They have different sized buying teams and different purchasers. It is quite variable. It is not a case that there is one particular model that probably would be very easy to oversee. One must get out there and engage with each one of them, which is why we are there with the RGGUs. I return to a point we made earlier, which is that were this to expand as envisaged, it could only be imagined what that would bring in, even in terms of an oversight, to get an understanding of the model. Therefore, a single regulator specifically focused on that is probably the way to go.

In respect of the international models - I think Deputy McConalogue spoke about the relationships with others - we would be aware of what is happening in the UK. I have a document which I can pass on to the Deputy later, if he likes, which outlines the difference between the UK grocery adjudicator and us. The scope is significantly narrower in the UK because the thresholds are much higher, for example, there are ten large retailers there with a turnover in excess of £1 billion subject to the code. Here it applies to retailers and wholesalers with a €50 million turnover. At present 22 of these entities have identified themselves as being subject to the regulation.

I could list all the enforcement powers but will focus on one. In the UK there is the power to impose a fine and penalties equivalent to 1% of the turnover. Comparing and contrasting that with what is available to us under the regulations and the Consumer Protection Act 2007, it covers contravention notices and breaches of those notices leading possibly to a prosecution, either summary with a €3,000 fine and-or six months' imprisonment on a first conviction or leading to €5,000 on a second or subsequent conviction. Depending on the scale of that, it may proceed to a prosecution on indictment. The quantum difference between us and the UK is obvious, and that fine can be imposed by the adjudicator.