Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

This Bill is based on populism. There was an outcry about stealth taxes and rising prices in this country last year which, I suppose, was captured most definitively by the work of Mr. Hobbs on television. The Minister's response was not to look at genuine cartels, at what was happening among some of the professions or to take on real vested interest, but by way of populism to make an issue of the 1987 groceries order. The groceries order, which has stood the test of time through successive Administrations of all political hues for 18 years and was found useful by all Administrations, and which was introduced originally by former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, who was hardly a rampant socialist, served its purpose.

I thought my analysis of the impact on prices, on Second Stage and over the duration of this Bill, provided a compelling enough case that this was not the appropriate target. It was not even responded to.

For nine of the 18 years prices covered by the groceries order increased less than prices not covered and for the balance, all but for the past two years, there was virtually no difference in prices. The notion that this was some significant anti-competitive device recently discovered was bizarre and unproven and no evidence, least of all the tome published by the Minister as justification last year, proved that point. In fact, all shades of opinion across the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business which looked at it felt that if ever there was a document that came to its conclusions first and then built the arguments around the conclusions, the Minister's document was it.

The Minister, in search of populism, is taking grave risks. The real issues voiced by experienced Deputies, former Ministers like the former Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, Deputy Cassidy, as well as Members across the Opposition benches, were reasoned, sensible, knowledgeable arguments none of which were faced up to or argued against by the Minister. If one reads every utterance of the Minister since he first announced the abolition of the groceries order, as I tried to do, the general view is that he knew in his heart, just like de Valera, that this was the right measure. There is a certain irony, therefore, that it is a successor of de Valera in the constituency of Clare who is left holding the can today. I suppose a burden shared is a burden halved and when those particular chickens come home with bird influenza there will be more than one Minister to carry the can.

This is populist. The notion, from the Competition Authority or from the Minister originally, was that there would be a definitive reduction in grocery prices on foot of this to counterbalance the dangers of predatory pricing, building of dominance, crushing of competition and reduction of choice. Given the case made by such radical organisations as CROSSCARE or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which made a compelling case to the committee, the Minister has now abandoned any notion that there will be a quantifiable reduction in grocery prices because he knows we will be measuring and the CSO, which provided us with useful information last year, will be brought back at the end of this year. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, would give us the yardstick by which to judge and in the concluding phase of this debate would tell us by how much he expects this legislation to reduce the cost of the grocery basket during the course of 2006. If he is so confident that this is the right measure, he should give us that yardstick.

There is no point in me taking up the time of the House anymore. We have made a compelling case. I approached this debate from the start with an open mind. If there was a compelling case I was willing to hear it. The Minister has reinstated many of the provisions of what he wanted characterised as a discredited groceries order. He has reinstated many of the provisions dealing with hello money and other issues. He has not, in my view and in the view of Deputies on this side of the House, dealt effectively with the issue of predatory pricing. He has trusted in European law and European Court decisions to do so. That is a dangerous area to leave unregulated to a satisfactory extent.

I hope my analysis is wrong. I hope it will not lead to increased dominance by one or two big players in the Irish market, the exclusion of choice, the destruction of the small player in the market, and people who are dependent on public transport or who are elderly being totally disadvantaged having to shop in five, ten or 15 years' time in major hypermarkets on the fringes of our towns rather than in community facilities available at affordable prices as is generally the position at present.

See this speech in context