Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Senators for the comprehensive debate on the Bill. They have made a number of points with which I will try to deal separately.

It is important that we focus clearly on the subject matter of the Bill, which is about the removal of the groceries order and issues such as "hello money", resale price maintenance, unfair practices and so on. Some Senators, including Senator Leyden, noted that planning context also has a significant bearing on where shops are located. However, we can only deal with so much in the context of this legislation.

As I said, 2,500 stores have closed since the introduction of the groceries order in 1987. The groceries order did not stop the move towards a greater concentration of the Irish market. That is the bottom line. As I also pointed out, the groceries order was also shoddy legislation even in terms of how it dealt with "hello money". As we set about drafting the current Bill, it became clear to us that the groceries order was not of a very high standard, and did not achieve what people have claimed for it. It created a floor below which prices could not go and banned below-net-invoice price, but did not ban below-cost prices in general.

With regard to issues like dominance, Senator Ryan pointed out that a firm is dominant when it can act unilaterally, without regard to its customers or competitors. People have referred to market shares of 60%, 65%, 35% and so on. Market share is only one criterion for determining dominance. In some cases a firm might be considered dominant with a relatively small market share. A firm with a 20% market share could be dominant in a situation where everyone else has only a 1% share of the market. To my knowledge, no competition law in any jurisdiction defines a precise market share for determining and defining dominance.

In that context it is important that the law is flexible and can be applied in given situations. Every situation can be different and one has to assess its set of circumstances and factors. The case in Drogheda where the Competition Authority determined that a company with a market share of 65% was not dominant, was a particular case. Taking all the factors into account, the authority made a finding in that instance. It would be wrong to extrapolate from that a kind of universal, uniform, determining criterion to be applied everywhere. That is not the case. It is mischievous and disingenuous to promote that as a credible argument.

Senator Coghlan also raised the planning context issue and made some remarks about the report prepared. It was not prepared with a view to a predetermined outcome. Arguments were not dismissed. For example, the views of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Crosscare and so on were considered and a chapter of the report was devoted to the submissions made by those organisations. The report did not agree with their conclusions, and nor would I. If one looks at what has happened, it is not true to say that multiples do no locate adjacent to areas of economic disadvantage. That does not stand up. Looking at where some of the major multiples have located around the country, it is not a universal truism, though some Senators, included Senator Norris, suggested it was. I do not accept that.

Senator Norris also spoke about garage forecourts. In many of those one will not get competitive pricing. They provide convenience shopping. People go there because they are close by, which suits them. They do not go in for price, but because it suits. I have done so myself.

I assure Senator Coghlan that every argument was analysed in full. The pros and cons were articulated within the context of the report and conclusions were drawn based on an evidential approach to the issue.