Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

My party does not support the primary purpose of the Bill, which is the revocation of the groceries order. Sinn Féin supported the retention of the order because it was introduced to address the fact that large supermarket chains would, in its absence, use loss leaders — products sold for less than the cost of production — to lure customers into stores by creating a distorted impression that the goods sold were cheaper than those of rivals. Small stores with tight profit margins will find themselves unable to compete. Ultimately, communities and customers will suffer if small retailers are forced out of business and people cease to have access to small retailers based in their communities. There is also serious concern that the revocation of this order will adversely affect local producers.

In a joint submission to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, the Combat Poverty Agency and Crosscare raised concerns that the repeal of the groceries order "may well cause a negative impact by worsening the inequalities that already exist in the groceries market, owing to issues of access and availability of low-cost, nutritional foodstuffs in low density and low income areas". They suggested that the revocation of the order would put low income families at greater risk of food poverty. These charities said it would be worth considering extending the order to cover meat, fish, fruit and vegetables because perishables were not originally included.

The ban on below-cost selling and the retail planning guidelines have ensured that retail development in the State takes place in a relatively sustainable manner and have provided a measure of protection to small traders and local economies. My party does not support the conclusion of the Government's Consumer Strategy Group report, upon which it seems the Minister based his decision to revoke the order, which calls for an end to the ban on below-cost selling of groceries. In particular, we contest the statement in that report that the ban on below-cost selling inflates prices and harms consumers.

In tandem with the moves being implemented by way of the legislation before the House is the equally regressive relaxation of the retail planning guidelines by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. Unfortunately, it appears to me that if one wants to change Government policy, and particularly in the case of Deputy Roche, then one gets a large company to lobby the Minister strongly. If one looks at the case of Wrigleys and the chewing gum tax, the Minister backed off. He backed off in the Ikea case too and there are other examples with his Department, such as incineration. That is most unfortunate.

My party does not believe it is acceptable for retail and planning policy to be dictated by a single furniture retailer seeking to enter the Irish market, which is what happened in the case of Ikea. There was no impediment to Ikea entering the market while the original retail planning guidelines remained in place, particularly given that it operates stores that are within those guidelines in a number of other countries.

My party is keenly aware of the consequences of such superstores in other states, where corner shops, grocers, banks, post offices, public houses and hardware stores disappeared from urban and rural communities. As we have said on many occasions, following the US model of building massive, out-of-town retail warehouse outlets will have a detrimental effect, not only on smaller and indigenous retailers who have abided by the retail planning guidelines but also on local communities and the environment. Developments of this size have enormous implications for traffic congestion and use of land, but their most obvious impact is on the local economy.

I have raised the following matter on numerous occasions but am compelled to raise it again because it has not been addressed, namely, that competition law is being used mischievously by the Competition Authority to attack the right of certain workers, particularly actors, musicians, film crews and freelance journalists, to be collectively represented. When the original competition legislation was going through this House, guarantees were given that this situation would not occur. It is ridiculous that these low-paid workers are being targeted by the Competition Authority. The Minister has indicated that he is unwilling to make legislative changes to address the position in which these workers find themselves. This is simply not good enough and underlines the necessity to remove responsibility for labour affairs from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I reiterate the call I have made previously for the Minister to amend the Industrial Relations Acts in respect of the definition of employee to rectify this unacceptable situation.

I also have serious concerns regarding the agenda of the Competition Authority on other fronts. It is becoming increasingly obvious that a central objective of the authority is to push the Government's privatisation agenda, as was seen from its recent report calling for the opening up of CIE's profitable bus routes to private operators. It is clear that the Competition Authority, along with the Government appointed National Consumer Agency, which last week was severely rebuked by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission for breaching broadcasting regulations by engaging in political advocacy in its campaign to have the groceries order rescinded, are mere vehicles of the Government to further its assault on the public delivery of essential services. The aforementioned are not independent bodies, as people have been led to believe.

I wish to raise another matter of urgent importance. The legislation is largely designed to facilitate large retail chains and I wish to draw attention to the conduct of one such chain, namely, Dunnes Stores. A shop steward with the union Mandate was sacked from her position at Dunnes Stores in the Ashleaf Centre in Crumlin for wearing a union badge on her store uniform. The company compounded this action by its subsequent refusal to attend a meeting about the disciplinary action with the worker, Ms Joanne Delaney, because she was accompanied by her trade union official. According to Mr. Brendan Archbold of Mandate:

The decision by Dunnes to sack a member of Mandate for wearing her union badge is symptomatic of a wider campaign by the chain to undermine this union and to systematically erode our right to represent our members effectively. For a considerable period of time now, it has been clear to Mandate that the company has wilfully and methodically sought to obstruct our efforts to engage with them on a variety of issues. This is just one example of the company's deplorable attitude to Trade Unions.

This case is symptomatic of a wider degradation of workers' rights, which has been under way in this State for a number of years by some employers. It is useless for the Minister to wax lyrical about the benefits of social partnership while allowing certain employers to engage in anti-union tactics such as those to which I have referred which are designed to intimidate workers who wish to become more active in the trade union movement. I call on the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to intervene directly with Dunnes Stores to ensure the immediate reinstatement of this worker and make it clear to the company that this kind of action will not be tolerated. This issue has been raised in the Scottish Parliament and in Westminster and will do serious damage to the reputation of this State in respect of the protection of workers' rights.

See this speech in context