Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Arthur Morgan.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2005 and to continue a debate that has been taking place for approximately two years. The debate has taken on a prominence far beyond the benefits intended by the Bill and has been deliberately engineered in Government circles to distract from the broader debate on the bad deal consumers have received in recent years. It has been the perfect vehicle for the Government to distract attention from the inflationary policies it introduced prior to the previous general election when it pump-primed the economy for electoral purposes. Then came rip-off Ireland to distract people from the mismanagement of the economy. The issue has been the subject of disproportionate focus.

Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have growth rates of 5% to 6% and full employment.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill because I believe it is of considerable importance to consumers and retailers. I have a vested interest in the retailing sector and understand the importance of small businesses and retail outlets to the fabric of every town, county and region. I have worked with the Musgrave group and the BWG group and am aware that investment in the retail sector has played a critical role in this economy. The retail sector has become increasingly competitive, with competition between multiples and independent retailers. This has led to an increase in the overall level of retailing as well as an enormous improvement in choice. The retail sector does not want to be ring-fenced but wants competition that is fair.

The groceries order was effective in 1987 but the definition of groceries has changed considerably since then. The changes proposed concerning the Competition Authority are important and are very much welcomed by the trade. However, predatory pricing needs to be addressed carefully and I am disappointed by the manner in which the Minister has chosen to deal with this issue. If multiples offer a promotional line, they should do so for a specific period in all outlets. If they are allowed to focus promotions on a confined range of stores, that will be to the detriment of smaller retailers in towns and villages. I am not simply referring to grocery retailers but to pharmacists and other retailers, including restaurateurs.