Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to speak about this very important legislation. Before I address the technical details of the Bill, I will follow up on Deputy McEntee's excellent contribution. He spoke about the relationship between food and health, an issue which is larger than the Government and encompasses every Member of the Oireachtas. The points he raised about health and concerns about many modern foods are very relevant to this debate.

Agriculture, tourism, small businesses and small pubs are at the heart of Ireland, make it different throughout the world and should be part of this wider debate. We are missing out on this and I welcome the Deputy's comments in this regard. As a representative of Dublin North-Central, I know that many people share my and Deputy McEntee's concern about the deterioration of the wider society. If the small shop or local pub is lost and the large investors come on to the pitch, the integrity of society and the economy is damaged. I urge people to reflect on this point because Irish society is at a crossroads. Which direction will it take? Will we move to the extreme right and usher in a dog-eat-dog society or will we begin reflecting about society and looking out for our neighbours and shopkeepers? The sad reality is that society has become very impersonal, which is relevant to today's debate. It is important for us to touch on these issues in the debate on this Bill.

I welcome the fact that the Minister of State is present to listen to the views on this Bill, including those which are critical. I will provide an independent view of the legislation. This Bill will have serious repercussions for Irish consumers and the thousands of Irish businesses involved in the production, supply and sale of food in Ireland. It will have major implications for the provision of local facilities in all our communities. I will develop these themes later. I am concerned that the Minister got the balance wrong in this legislation. The Bill will do nothing to prevent larger retailers from squeezing smaller retailers and suppliers as part of their greedy battle for increased market share.

The Bill does not contain any practical proposals to tackle the considerable market power of the larger multiples and has no effective mechanism to prevent them from abusing their power. If this legislation is enacted in its current form, it will lead to less choice for Irish consumers, greater consolidation in the marketplace and, ultimately, less Irish-produced food. This debate relates to both health and the community. The Bill will not provide any safeguard to ensure fair play in the food market and will give the largest retailers in this market a legislative basis with which to squeeze out competitors without sanction or fear of regulatory reproach. These retailers will be able to use every means at their disposal, including predatory pricing, the demanding of hello money, the abuse of credit terms and the imposition of unfair contract terms on suppliers. If the Minister wishes to ensure that consumers benefit from cheaper prices and greater choice and competition in retail, he must introduce real and meaningful controls to prevent unfair play in the food sector and ensure meaningful competition in retail.

I hope the Government will support the strengthening of this Bill as it goes through the Dáil to ensure it genuinely facilitates and achieves effective competition in retail. Creating a legislative basis for the largest market players to grow even larger will not achieve this purpose.

We have reached a crossroads in respect of the wider debate on competition, business, small shops and the role of agriculture and the community. The best way to sum this up is to liken it to the debate on television personalities, where some people prefer Brendan O'Connor and others prefer Des Bishop. O'Connor's mannerism, for example, is built on greed, being self-centred, degrading people and a right-wing economic agenda. The mannerism of Des Bishop, or Bishopism as I term it, is built on understanding, having respect for people, especially in marginalised communities, and giving such people hope and positivity. This debate is somewhat like that debate. One can have O'Connorism or Bishopism. I urge Deputies to take on Bishopism as it gives hope and respect to the person and it benefits the community. It is important to state this in the broader debate.

This Bill contains six sections: amendment of the Competition Act 2002 by inserting a new Part 2A, amendment of section 30 of the Competition Act 2002, amendment of section 45 of the Competition Act 2002, revocation of the groceries order, repeals, and the Short Title and commencement. Section 1 of the legislation contains an amendment to the Competition Act 2002 by inserting a new Part 2A to prevent certain unfair trading practices in the groceries trade. I accept that it is important to have this. Section 15B sets out new rules regarding anti-competitive conduct in the groceries sector. Section 15B(1) is designed to prohibit resale price maintenance in the groceries sector.

These are important, and although it is very well to have a debate about competition and prices, we must not lose sight of the quality issue, in particular the quality of a product or particular food. This is related to the health debate. We should face the reality that consumers have major concerns about the quality of food in the State and there is a lack of confidence on the issue. This is a reality, be it in a debate about cancer or other illnesses. People have that concern. We must reflect on this. I stated with regard to remarks made by Deputy McEntee that this is bigger than one political party or the Government. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children should pursue this topic as problems are emerging in the broader society.

People may discuss the period in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s when there were outbreaks of tuberculosis in the State. This was a major crisis, solved thanks to people such as Noel Browne, who was also an Independent Member of this House and had a strong health mandate. With the current issue, an important factor to consider is that we had a crisis involving TB and we had to respond to it. We have a cancer crisis in the State in 2006, and many believe major contributory factors are the chemicals and preservatives in foods. The jury is out on the issue and I urge academics and medical people involved in research to open their eyes to it. The matter will become more apparent in a few years. It is important that the consumer has confidence in the quality of food.

Section 15B(3) is designed to prohibit parties from compelling or coercing others to pay advertising allowances. I welcome this as it deals with the matter of corruption in business. Section 15B(4) is designed to prohibit so-called hello money in new or extended retail outlets. Section 15C(1) confers the right of action on any person who is aggrieved as a result of actions prohibited under section 15B. A similar right of action is provided for the Competition Authority. It is important to consider these issues.

It is important that we do not allow ourselves to lose small local shops, whether these are in an urban, rural or island area. Small shops and businesses are very important. We must support them in this debate, and I will side with the smaller shopkeeper and service provider in the local community. It is important as this shop is more than just a place where a person can get bread or milk. It is a local community centre for many. They may drop in to the shop for a chat, or older people may drop in because they live on their own in the area. These people have the opportunity, when getting the paper, for example, to be proactive and involved with the local community.

The small shop is also personable and accountable to the local community. We all have experiences of the local shopkeeper being supportive of the voluntary community, be it in football clubs or community and residents groups. In the past week one of my local shops has been involved in a project with me on raising funds for children and adults with a disability. These are commonplace examples.

As we are discussing the rights of the small shopkeeper in the context of this Bill, we have a duty to protect the people concerned commercially and from a security perspective. In recent days, an owner of a small off-licence in my constituency attended my clinic and reported that he had been robbed three times in the past four weeks. Robberies took place twice with guns and the last robbery was carried out by a gang with knives at 12.40 p.m. last Tuesday. The unfortunate man was terrified. On the first two occasions he was made lie on the floor while guns were put to his head, all for €200 or €300. The last incident was more serious and the man was more fearful because knives were held to his person as the gang stole cigarettes and alcohol. This is an indication of the way society is heading.

It is important that we defend the interests of law-abiding citizens who provide a valuable community service and who need our support. People nonetheless attack and abuse them. I have already raised the matter with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I will not tolerate any of my constituents being treated in this way. We must face the reality that these types of crimes are taking place. It is a nonsense that a programme such as "Crimecall" shows petty crime incidence when my constituency is subject to robberies at gun and knife point, and it is not even mentioned. It is important that these incidents are mentioned to defend the safety and security of the small shopkeeper.

The larger players in the retail market must be closely monitored. It is the duty of the Government and the legislation. Superstores should be watched carefully as many of these businesses are very aggressive in the market. They will be involved in practices that will hammer the smaller businessman. With regard to the manner in which staff are treated, I commend the credibility and integrity of smaller shopkeepers and business people in looking after their own staff, paying them well and providing a good local service.

On the other hand, some stores do not treat their staff properly. I mention the case of Joanne Delaney in this regard. Ms Delaney had worked in the Dunnes Stores in Crumlin and was sacked by that supermarket for wearing a union badge in the workplace. She is a shop steward for Mandate, the union of those working in shops. She was recently suspended from the job and she has now been sacked. Mandate is attempting to defend her case. It represents 40,000 workers in the retail and bar trade, including staff at Dunnes Stores.

I am horrified to see such action against a person for such a trivial issue as wearing a union badge. I strongly support Mandate in this case. Brendan Archibald, the national official for Mandate, has explained there are well established mechanisms available to Dunnes Stores and operated by the union which have been repeatedly bypassed by the company during this process. The decision by Dunnes Stores to sack a member of Mandate for wearing her union badge is symptomatic of a wider campaign by the chain to undermine the union and systematically erode its right to represent its members effectively. For a considerable period, it has been clear to Mandate that the company has wilfully and methodically sought to obstruct the union's efforts to engage with the company on a variety of issues. This is just one example of the company's deplorable attitude to trade union and labour law in 2006. Issues such as this have contributed to the souring of the industrial relations environment in Dunnes Stores. The company continues to ignore the principles of natural justice and the Labour Relations Commission code of practice on disciplinary procedures as they work to isolate and destroy the union. Unless this matter is dealt with satisfactorily from the union's point of view it has the potential to escalate, given the worst atmosphere in the company's history.

We are discussing the retail sector and an employee who works in that sector. We cannot allow such a situation to develop in the retail and shops industry in 2006. It is important for the Government to listen to the debate and to the concerns raised by all Deputies.

In terms of the detail of the legislation, the departmental report on which the Minister and the Government based their decision to introduce the Bill contained a number of errors and mistakes. This misinformed the Minister and the Government. For example, Germany has a ban on below cost selling but the report states it does not. Second, suppliers will not be able to use existing laws to enforce credit terms but the report states they will. A ban on below cost selling is practical but the report states it is not. Selling below the cost of goods purchased does not take place in other sectors but the report states it does. The Competition Bill will not prevent predatory pricing but the report states it will. Finally, the report asks why the rate of inflation has diverged so dramatically from that of the United Kingdom in the past nine years but there are clear and simple answers if the authors of the report had only looked at them. Why, for example, is UK inflation higher than Irish inflation in the past two and a half years when the United Kingdom has no ban on below cost selling? That is the question that should have been asked.

The report also omits to mention that UK supermarkets are subject to a code of practice but Irish supermarkets, if the Bill is passed, will not be subject to such a code. The UK Competition Commission recommended that supermarkets with a market share above 8% should not be permitted to open new supermarkets within a specified distance of their existing supermarkets. The successful entry of Aldi and Lidl was made possible by the ban on below cost selling.

Removing the ban will bring about selling of alcohol at below cost which will encourage alcohol consumption. However, at times, people go over the top about the subject of alcohol. Before we deal with the problem of alcohol in society we should first accept responsibility ourselves. We should not blame the people who sell it or who are involved in the industry. The vast majority of Irish citizens enjoy alcohol in moderation and get on with their lives. They do not get into problems. Those who are involved in anti-social behaviour already have other issues. People should come into the real world and start accepting responsibility. It is a shame that this constant theme persists about people. We must, however, be vigilant about our young people, give them a healthy attitude to the enjoyment of alcohol and teach them how to drink it sensibly. If they can do it in France or Spain, where every young person has a positive attitude to alcohol and has no problem handling it when they reach their teens or early 20s, I do not see why we cannot do it. If our parents, who grew up in Ireland in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, could give us a healthy and balanced attitude to alcohol I do not see why we cannot do so in 2006. I say to society to stop blaming the world, accept responsibility and deal with these issues.

For the year to November 2005 Ireland had the lowest rate of food inflation in the eurozone and in the 15 member EU and the second lowest in the 25-member EU. These are recent figures, which I raise because we are dealing with competition, food, shopkeepers, small businesses and large superstores. It is part of the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005 but also part of the broader debate on the direction we are going. In 2006, some feel less equal than others and, for all our talk about equal rights, a significant minority living in Ireland have not achieved legal, economic or cultural parity. The economic, political and cultural disadvantages suffered by these people are serious violations of justice. It cannot be disputed that the Ireland created by the Celtic tiger is a much more prosperous one. We all accept that but prosperity creates dilemmas of its own. Contemporary society displays proliferation of many interests — individual, social, environmental and medical — each demanding a fair share of society's resources. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be enough resources to meet all those needs. There is no easy ethical blueprint to which society can refer to establish that all its obligations have been justly discharged. In the context of difficult decisions about the distribution of resources awkward questions need to be put. How is the tension between the rights of individuals and the overall good of society to be resolved? What are the relevant inequalities that justify giving more resources to some and less to others?

We need to balance the rights of the individual, the good of the other and the common good but how, in Ireland in 2006, are we to attain the correct balance? To date we seem to be failing a substantial minority of our population. I do not say that lightly and it is not a question as to the rights and wrongs of competition. I favour competition but we must not lose control or balance. Nowadays the debate is not about creating a wealthy society because we have a wealthy country. Now it is about how we distribute resources, the extra that we have. The challenge for all political parties and Members of the Oireachtas is to ensure the weaker sections of society get the biggest boost from the Celtic boom and our economic prosperity. That must be the priority or there is no point in saying we believe in equality, justice and fair play.

I welcome the opportunity to have this broad and wide-ranging debate on the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005. There are many issues I did not get to. There are major flaws in the legislation. I will stand by the working man and woman of this State. I will stand by the small shop against large vested interests and by the community. I urge the Minister to listen to this view.

See this speech in context