Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

It is our job, through the various agencies and through good legislation, to protect the consumer.

In regard to the Eddie Hobbs phenomenon and the associated discussion of the level of profits enjoyed by business, I am somewhat amused by the freedom with which Senators O'Toole and Norris can pour scorn on Mr. Hobbs. When one backbencher and one Senator from the Government side made reference to him at the time his programme was broadcast, the world nearly collapsed in a fury. This indicates how people can get excited about these issues. Mr. Hobbs made a reasonable contribution to the national debate in terms of focussing on these issues and generating greater awareness of the groceries order, of which not many people were well informed before the publication of the report of the Consumer Strategy Group. The public is now much more aware of the issues.

It is well accepted that there is a need for vigilance, as observed by Senators Leyden and Dardis. I will ask the Competition Authority to monitor the trade, particularly following the enactment of this legislation, presuming it passes successfully through both Houses. We will keep that under review and take into account the views of Members.

Senator Coghlan voiced concerns about the timeframe assigned to the Bill. However, we have had much debate on this matter. It has been discussed at length by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business on two occasions. I appreciate the Seanad taking the Bill in the next two days. A month will elapse before it is considered by the Dáil. There is ample time, therefore, to deal with the specifics of what is a short Bill.

It is important to inform Members that the Department did not dismiss submissions from the trade, nor did the Consumer Strategy Group do so in compiling its report. I acknowledge that the trade has a genuine interest and a right to make submissions. Moreover, I went further in this matter by meeting personally with many of the parties and companies involved, including organisations such as RGDATA, and teasing out the arguments with them.

Senator Dardis mentioned farmers and other food producers. My Department met representatives of the IFA to discuss this matter. It was clear to me that the groceries order did not protect farmers and producers in the sense that multiples could still dictate the amount of the discount that the producer was obliged to give. Nobody knew what was going on in this regard. Moreover, there was a certain degree of acknowledgement of that reality by many of the interested parties.

I thank Senator White for her kind comments about the quality of my introductory contribution and for giving us the benefit of her experience in an unvarnished way. It is always interesting to hear from Members who have frontline experience in this matter, particularly in dealing with what have been described as the "dreaded multiples". Senator White made the point that, for her, they were not so dreaded at all but had facilitated the expansion of a particular indigenous company. In my work with Enterprise Ireland, I seek to get Irish goods, across all sectors, on the shelves of many of these companies. We must be conscious that we now operate in a global economy.

Senator Ryan raised the dominance issue and made a lengthy contribution in terms of competition within the marketplace. I understand from this that he had no great regard for the groceries order, nor, however, does he seem to have any great regard for free market policies. I have dealt with the issue he raised regarding dominance and it can be examined again on Committee Stage.

Senator Coghlan pointed to United Kingdom statistics in regard to retail provision. I stand over the research and analysis undertaken for the Consumer Strategy Group's report. There are issues in regard to the research undertaken by the United Kingdom Government body in terms of how it came about and how it was "manhandled" and changed to suit a particular end. The Department takes the view that it was an inaccurate analysis of the reality. Senator Coghlan mentioned the report of a third party, Paul Walsh, which is an analysis of product differentiation between multiples and convenience stores. It is perfectly valid research which I recommend to Members.

Senator Coghlan spoke about the delay in determining the anti-competitive nature of "hello money" and also referred to the issue of criminal and civil offences. There is no delay in this regard. To date, any delays have related to the higher bar of proof required in the context and process of trying to prove anti-competitive behaviour to a criminal level. The Department has good reasons for going the civil route in regard to transgressions of these additional amendments to the Competition Act 2002. It will lead to quicker redress and interventions. It is important to point out that some of the existing criminal sanctions deal with what we would call hard-core, cartel-type conduct, which is regarded as among the most serious of anti-competitive offences. The existing legislation deals with those in a strong way in terms of penalties and so on.

The range of offences for which we provide in this Bill are not of the same order as those I mentioned. In this context, the civil prohibition has the advantage of allowing aggrieved parties or the Competition Authority itself to proceed quickly in court to challenge any suspect conduct or practice. It makes sense to take this approach and it would be inappropriate to criminalise all conduct, particularly that which is not prohibited in all circumstances. The Department is very clear on this issue.

I look forward to Committee Stage and I thank Members for their interest and contributions.