Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

Yes. Clearly there is a legislative predisposition there to the French lifestyle. It is interesting that France has a groceries order, or a similar below-cost selling provision, yet that has not prevented the demise of the French boulangerie or bakery. Perhaps we need to do more analysis of the status of the French bakery in rural France. However, just around the corner from me in my own built-up area in Ballinlough there is a wonderful little bakery established for the past few years. It has withstood all the competition from the multiples and if one wants to get the best brown soda bread, one has to go to Ross's bakery in Temple Hill.

This kind of development is happening in Ireland. Senator Ryan alluded to niche products, with certain types of facilities reopening and developing. The little bakery I mentioned has a very substantial clientele because people want what is being provided there. It is not commodity-based but deals in different types of products. That is happening across the country and perhaps reflects the economic trends and the way things are moving in terms of income generation. There is a far different market now than would have been there 25 or 30 years ago. We currently have a range of choice within the market, from the symbol groups to the multiples, the Aldi and Lidl discount stores and the convenience stores. From all the analysis it seems that the convenience store is the real growth sector.

Senator Leyden mentioned the petrol prices in Ballymahon, which are assuming legendary status. That illustrates once again that people can buck the trend. They can do things differently through innovation, in the way they provide their services and the choices they make in their offerings to the public. The public often responds to this approach.

The legislation is sufficiently flexible to deal with the key issue, which is not merely about dominance but rather the abuse of same. There must be a legislative template to deal with that abuse, which is the core issue. Setting unfair prices is an abuse. If one attempts to define predatory pricing in an overly prescriptive fashion in primary legislation, an entire range of loopholes might be created through which businesses could escape. This would serve to dilute the strength of the legislation, which I outlined clearly in my opening address. I repeat that predatory pricing is wrong, illegal and punishable under the Competition Act 2002 by fines of up to €4 million, or 10% of turnover. That Act is designed to be analogous to Articles 81 and 82 of the EU treaty. European case law supports the use of these analogous provisions to prohibit and punish instances of predatory pricing.

That is the law. We received advice on that in advance of and during the drafting of this legislation. We do not want to amend the relevant section of the Bill in a manner that dilutes its strength in terms of the prohibition on predatory pricing. I reiterate that the Competition Authority has not been inundated with complaints about predatory pricing. International research indicates it is a relatively rare practice. It is not something in which businesses wish to indulge on a regular basis because it is a costly exercise. It is a matter of taking out one's competitor in a predatory way. As soon as one competitor is eliminated, however, another will arrive in its place. I do not contend that it does not, cannot or will not happen. Someone made the point that there has been no significant prosecution in this regard.