Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

Exactly. That group was running a parallel investigation. My information is that it did not speak to any of the multiples or to Aldi or Lidl. It simply put a basket of goods together. Deputy O'Connor spoke earlier and I feel slightly car sick after the journey, given that he has been everywhere in the country with regard to his position on the grocery trade.

I have a background in groceries too. It is called doing the weekly shopping. I have never considered a bottle of Bacardi to be a grocery item in my weekly shopping. I fully accept that the people in the consumer strategy group are of a different breed. I have a family to feed so I cannot sit down with electric toothbrushes — another item in the grocery basket — drinking Bacardi and whiling away the hours watching Oprah Winfrey.

The group's statistics were off-beat and wrong. It got the VAT rate wrong, for example, which seems incredible for a group that was established by the Minister to examine the grocery trade and the cost of groceries for the average shopper. If that flawed information were a poll taken about a political party, it would be dismissed out of hand as being too narrow in focus, not addressing the issues and getting the candidates wrong. However, on the basis of this group's recommendation, the Minister decided to revoke the groceries order. It is quite staggering.

The group was incorrectly informed on the issue of predatory pricing. The Competition Act does not ban predatory pricing but bans unfair pricing by companies in a dominant position. As none of the supermarket retailers is in a dominant position, that is, owning 40% of the market, they could not be prosecuted for engaging in predatory pricing under the provisions of section 5 of the Competition Act 2002. The group got that wrong. I believe this group is still in existence. If so, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, should not listen to it again unless its members can prove their credentials or at least prove that they can do the type of research a first year commerce student is expected to do.

We should be aware of food poverty. There are different types of poverty in society. There is the obvious poverty of lack of money but there is also food and fuel poverty. There is a clear definition of food poverty. Living in poverty and social disadvantage imposes constraints on food consumption in three main ways. It affects food affordability through the choice and quality of food that can be bought and the share of the household budget that is allocated to food. That is straightforward. It impacts on access to food through the retail options available and the capacity to shop in terms of transport and physical ability. It impacts on the availability of storage and cooking.

Deputy Cregan said the issue is not just cost. I could not agree with him more. It is about access as well. The committee of which I am a member and which produced a comprehensive report deals with all these matters. Its sixth recommendation states that while price is important, the joint committee believes there are broader social issues which need to be considered in the context of the ban on below cost selling. These relate to the need for the consumer to have a choice of grocery shops within a reasonable distance of his or her home.

I read the Minister's speech to the Seanad on this issue in which he tried to debunk the argument about what has taken place in Great Britain with the arrival of massive retail parks. He said that every household in England now lives within 4 km of a petrol station with an attached convenience store. Sometimes people lose the run of themselves when they take certain positions. What if one does not have a car and one runs out of milk at breakfast or tea time? We have all been in that situation. Would one run to the shop for a litre of milk when it is 4 km away? The notion that this is the type of access people should have to provide food for themselves and their families is outrageous. The arguments the committee heard on this were such that it unanimously pleaded with the Minister, through its detailed report and recommendations, not to revoke the groceries order.

Why did the Minister do it? When he was Minister in the Department of Health and Children he had more publications than Rupert Murdoch. He revoked the order because it was populist to do so, not because it was right or wrong or because of the effect it would have. A television programme had heightened awareness about how we are being ripped off. I believe the programme, even though it was presented by a Cork man, was misinformed on the groceries order. However, it was popular and it was a quiet time for news so the groceries order was revoked.

As with the lack of protection for workers and the lack of an increase in the labour inspectorate, this is about the philosophy of letting the market rip, so to speak. The theory is to let others in because it will drive down prices. It will not drive down prices for me and the Minister but it will drive wages down for the ordinary working person and those trying to support their families. Now the groceries order is removed to let competition rip. The view of the Labour Party is that competition is about more than price. It is about good planning and access.

Crosscare and the Combat Poverty Agency came before the committee. They pointed out that many elderly people of a certain age do not drive. If they do not drive and there is no corner store or convenient Spar, Mace or SuperValu, where will they get their food? It is not as if we have a social service to support their needs; we do not. There have been cutbacks in the home help service. Even if one has a home help for an hour a day, it will take longer than an hour to travel to the retail outlet and return with the shopping. Why did the Minister do it?

Inflation in groceries was 1% in the negative up to May last year. Does the Minister hope to drive it down further? The "Morning Ireland" programme this morning should have made the Minister pause and, perhaps, change his mind. Statoil is about to sell its interests in Ireland. It says it is because of competition from the multiples. Statoil does not just sell oil but also groceries in convenience shops attached to the petrol stations. These are supposed to be 4 km from everybody's home but now they will be gone. If anything should rouse our interest, this should. This is about lack of access and lack of availability in the grocery industry.

There is no need to revoke this order aside from the Minister's need for another headline. A Fianna Fáil backbencher spoke some time ago about the Minister's promise to introduce legislation to protect the consumer. Why would he do that when he has revoked the groceries order? It is not related to predatory pricing so why do it? We are still trying to sort out the mess with the nursing homes after this Minister. Why are people so confident he has got this issue right? None of the multiples asked or said anything about the groceries order when they appeared before the committee. They spoke about hello and shelf money etc. They spoke about waste charges and the disposal of waste as additional costs that their counterparts in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom do not have to carry to such an extent. However, none of them asked for the removal of the groceries order.

The chairman of the Competition Authority came to talk to the committee. He said he was not interested in access or planning, just in prices. He said he was not interested in anything except prices. I hope he does well with the fair trade commission in England. He was on his way out when he made that statement of course. He also told us that the abolition of the groceries order would save average shoppers €1,000 per year on their shopping basket. We have heard nothing about that since.

I advise others to do what I am going to do. When the Bill is enacted I will do a big shop and stick my receipt on the back of the kitchen door. In a year's time I will ask the Minister, Deputy Martin, or John Fingleton for my €1,000 because I guarantee the cost of my basket of groceries will not have reduced.

See this speech in context