Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

There is some precedent in this regard. The National Consumer Agency can consider the Competition Authority's disgracefully low level of performance and output. Few entities established by the Oireachtas have made so much noise while doing so little for consumers over the years. The authority has failed to connect with the issues of utmost importance to people. It has preferred to concentrate on highbrow and esoteric studies, which have usually been produced too late to influence Government policy. The authority has not yet produced a final report on legal services, even though the Minister has announced his proposals in that regard. It has failed to produce a final report on architects, even though the Government is proceeding with the Building Control Bill 2005. The authority's report on insurance was produced long after the Government established the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, with the support of the House, to tackle the issue of high insurance costs.

The Competition Authority's record in the area of enforcement has been dire. There is no evidence that it has successfully deconstructed any cartels in the economy, or taken on any hard cases in a manner that has benefitted consumers. The authority's approach to the financial services industry, which resulted in a weak and mealy-mouthed report, can be contrasted with the work of the National Consumer Council in Northern Ireland, where a hard-hitting and focused report had the banks in that jurisdiction in a state of crisis as they sought to stave off an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading.

It is clear that the authority is not operating as an effective body. It does not have a chairman and there is no sign of a new chairman being appointed. There are vacancies in key areas of its membership. For example, the head of its anti-cartel division left that position some months ago. The Minister is relying on some of his officials to ensure that the authority has a quorum so it can do its business.

The Minister does not seem to care about the poor performance of the Competition Authority and the impact that is having on consumers and businesses. He seems content to allow the authority to perform at a low level. By giving it new powers in this legislation, the Minister is placing his faith four square behind the authority. He has shown his hallmark unwillingness to take measures beyond those contained in the manila covered brief handed to him by his officials. Fine Gael has published some constructive policy proposals which will make the Competition Authority more resourceful and effective on behalf of consumers. I ask the Minister to examine our proposals on Committee Stage.

The Minister's approach to competition policy is illustrated by the provisions of the legislation we are debating, which has been presented on foot of a consultation process on the future of the groceries order. I have mentioned some of the problems I have with the Minister's report and his subsequent legislation. It is interesting to review the manner in which some of the submissions which were received by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment have been presented in the Department's report. It is clear from the report that the Department decided to remove the groceries order before it received any submissions on the matter. Having read the report, I have to express strong concern about a policy decision being taken on the basis of one side of an argument.

I find some parts of the report particularly disturbing. For example, the report dismisses the views or perspectives of parties with views contrary to those of the Consumer Strategy Group or the Competition Authority. That represents an arrogant dismissal of the genuine concerns of people who will be directly or adversely affected as result of any changes which will be made. The negative attitude to the positions of those who have traditionally supported the groceries order was hard to understand until I read the foreword to the report. I learned that the evaluation and assessment of submissions was carried out with the assistance of an academic from Trinity College who is a well known opponent of the order and whose work is also referred to on an ostensibly objective basis in the course of the report.

I was particularly disconcerted by the report's cursory dismissal of the valid concerns expressed by the few non-vested interests to express a perspective on the groceries order and competition in food retailing. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business which received some impressive submissions about the retail food sector from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Crosscare and the Combat Poverty Agency, which is a statutory agency. The committee was particularly impressed by the agencies' support for many of the measures which should be included in this legislation, but are being excluded as a consequence of the provisions of section 15(5)(b), which I mentioned earlier. The Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency would do well to emulate the standard of the presentations made by the agencies in question whose valid concerns have been ignored.

The Minister, Deputy Martin, has criticised the groceries order and the measures in it on the basis that they lead to higher consumer prices. His departmental officials have failed to establish that this is the case, however. They have not adopted the flawed analysis presented by the Competition Authority in this regard. One telling difficulty with the Department's analysis of the groceries order, in the context of the legislation before the House, is that neither the Minister nor his officials have indicated the likely consequences of the abolition of the order in terms of consumer prices, competition, employment and investment in the food sector. Members are aware of the recent sad news from County Waterford concerning Cappoquin Chickens. I suspect that similar announcements will be commonplace in the next few years as the changes being introduced by the Minister in this legislation take effect. I will discuss my concerns about the provisions relating to predatory pricing later in this debate.

I have concerns about the Department's use of statistics and data on the provision of food services in the UK. I have serious doubts about the Department's contention that there is no difficulty in the provision of food shopping in the UK. The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business will take up this matter at a later stage. It is interesting to note that since the Department published the report, a group of MPs in the UK has issued a report calling for major action to prevent further deterioration in the provision of food shop facilities in that country. Why would they do that if there were no problem?

See this speech in context