Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

Prior to pumping the economy for the next general election, the Government will say it has tackled the issue of the lack of competition by the bold provisions of this Bill, but that is nonsense. It does not attack the core issue of competition in this society. As evidence from Central Statistics Office and other reports have shown, the groceries order was not a major reason for the lack of competition in the market.

The Taoiseach, relying on the steady feed of information from focus groups, cleverly realised that while the country and the economy were doing very well, there was a sense of unease at the loss of certain values and characteristics we once treasured, namely, the sense of community, belonging and place. There is now a feeling of alienation, despite the wealth we have. The Taoiseach is astute and, a year or so ago, made the political decision to project himself as a community man, despite the fact that, as a Minister and then Taoiseach for effectively the past 20 years, he and his colleagues have done more than anybody to bring those changes about and damage our sense of community. He did so first with transport policy and now with retailing.

The groceries order was an attempt to protect a form of retailing that connected with the community and provided choice in the form of the local corner shop. The Taoiseach, for all his talk about protecting the community, is destroying it. He proclaims Mr. Puttnam's book on how to develop communities but everything Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have done in Government diminishes our sense of community. At the centre of any community lies the corner shop and genuine concern exists that watering down the provisions in terms of protecting the competitive environment for those small shops will lead to a situation where large multinational supermarkets are able to become more dominant. That is bad for the development of our communities and is the reason for my party's opposition to this Bill.

The experience elsewhere is the same, as statistics and comments have revealed. Correctly, we compare ourselves primarily with the UK, which, howsoever the statistics are twisted, has been clearly unsuccessful in maintaining local shops. Massive out-of-town shopping centres dominate that country's retailing sector, resulting in huge losses. The Minister may try to fudge the figures or change the facts by quoting the proximity of a certain percentage of householders to the nearest petrol station, but that does not represent the classic community outlet or the type of shop we are trying to protect and develop. Being able to walk 4 km to the nearest petrol station is not, in my estimation, the type of retailing environment we need to protect and develop our communities.

I briefly remarked earlier on a committee meeting I attended at which the CSO made an utterly compelling presentation. Evidence from the 18 to 20 years of the grocery order suggests that, for the vast majority of the time, there was no statistical difference between the price of goods covered by the order and those not covered. That simple but undeniable fact belies the arguments and shows that this issue was blown out of all proportion. One of the prime reasons for the relatively small divergence revealed in figures for recent years is that the grocery order included a significant proportion of basic foodstuffs produced in this country, such as milk and bread, which we will never import. They fall within a completely different competitive price pattern from most of the goods on the non-grocery order. For example, practically all our clothing comes from the Far East, where the cost of workers can be less than €1 per day. A slight price difference will apply in that situation between grocery order dominated products, which tend to involve a higher percentage of home produced goods, and outside products.

Another competitive retailing issue is the difference between prices here and in the UK across all price bands, which can in part be explained by our threatened fate of becoming an extension of the UK's distribution system. Rather than having our own wholesale system and suppliers, we are becoming in effect a continuation of the Manchester section of the British distribution system. I have investigated this matter and am concerned that, as a euro country, we suffer from circumstances in which goods produced in the European Union are imported into the UK, where an exchange rate difference occurs, and then go through a further exchange transaction when shipped to Ireland. We suffer from being a subset of the UK's distribution system and are being hit by two or three exchanges.

The Government needs to examine the issue of the costs involved in exchanges. If we allow Ireland to go the way of America and Britain, where large retailers dominate, these problems will only increase. The dominance of Tesco here and in England cannot be ignored. While that dominance arose through the company's good management and competitive instincts, as a policy maker, I am not sure that I want a situation to develop here where we have one large multiple in effective control of the Irish groceries market. If I look at what was achieved during the history of the groceries order, I see no major increases in prices compared to other goods. It was one small but valuable part in the protection and development of the independent grocery sector here, which, despite being much stronger in comparison with our neighbouring island, is being gotten rid of by Fianna Fáil.

I share the concerns of some previous speakers on the failure of the Bill to address the core issues. If the Minister believes he can provide better order through this competition Bill, it behoves him to tackle the core provision of the groceries order, that is, the restriction on predatory pricing. However, the legislation will not do that and will have to be amended on Committee Stage if the Minister wants it to do so because, for all the talk about companies being able to take on legal cases with the Competition Authority if there is proof of dominance or unfair competition, it will be incredibly difficult for retailers to carry through successful cases.

We have seen the complete inability of the Competition Authority to undertake effective action where there was strong evidence of lack of competition. If such cases did not result in prosecution, how can we believe, unless we legislate against predatory pricing, that small retailers will be able to use the Competition Authority to protect themselves? Even if the Minister is allowed this approach, there is a fundamental flaw in his means of achieving his objective and I wish he would amend the Bill accordingly.

The restriction on so-called "hello" money is welcome because that could lead to uncompetitive practices but it should be extended beyond the narrow remit of groceries as defined within the Bill to a broad range of everyday household items. A case can be made for an amendment which allows for no restrictions on offers. If a company discounts massively and provides cheap loss leaders to bring customers into stores, it should not be able to restrict the offers it makes. It may use such tactics of its own free will but this should not be allowed on a completely restrictive basis because that is not in the interests of consumers. Companies use such practices to attract people but the costs involved can be recouped by selling other products for slightly higher prices. A check on the honesty of such a system would be to determine whether restrictions are placed on offers.

A range of amendments could be made to sharpen this Bill but I return to my primary question of why this issue was given prominence. I believe it was given such an airing because it was a distraction from the broader economic mistakes that have been committed by the Government. That is one of the reasons my party is opposing the Bill, which will remove something proven to be effective and important, not only for the retailers who may be taken out of business by powerful multiples, but also in terms of the protection and development of communities. Our sense of village, town and urban life requires the existence of a local store so that people are not reliant on large multiples in out-of-town locations, which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government seems to favour — the Lord knows why, as he is supposed to be responsible for the environment. We should not be left with that type of urban society because the Taoiseach is correct that such a situation is not conducive to communities. The Government either believes in developing communities or in looking after big business. I sense that it espouses the latter attachment.

See this speech in context