Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I understand what Senator Coghlan is trying to do with these amendments. He proposes to widen the scope of products covered by the Bill to include household necessaries, which were included in the groceries order. That issue was discussed at some length in the course of preparing this Bill. Household necessaries are excluded because the definition contained in the groceries order was proving extremely problematic.

The recent High Court decision on disposable nappies gave rise to much debate and only added to the uncertainty regarding the products that were included in the definition of household necessaries. That difficulty would only be likely to increase with these amendments as the range of products available and sold in grocery stores increases. For example, some grocery stores now sell televisions, clothes, hardware and so on. Furthermore, the nature of grocery stores is also changing on an ongoing basis. Many large grocery stores are now departments of much larger department stores. Sometimes products sold in the grocery department are also sold in the home wares department of such stores.

I am concerned that the inclusion of household necessaries could create significant difficulties in interpretation and enforcement and might extend the provisions of the Bill beyond the traditional grocery trade. For example, would household necessaries be covered when sold in outlets other than grocery stores? There are also implications for the term "grocery retailer" as used in amendment No. 2.

A key requirement of the Bill is ensuring compliance and guaranteeing enforcement. In that context, no interests would be served by creating doubt and perhaps giving rise to court debates in the future as to which products are covered by the Bill. There is merit in confining the definition to food and drink. Food and drink make up the bulk of products sold in conventional grocery stores. It is estimated that 60% to 65% of products sold, even in the biggest supermarkets, is made up of food and drink. This can increase to as much as 75% when individual products are weighted by volume. Some grocery stores stock between 30,000 and 40,000 products but earn the bulk of their income from approximately 100 product lines, mostly of which are food and drink.

It is important to point out, in the context of this Bill, that we have increased the coverage of food and drink beyond that provided for in the groceries order by extending the provisions to cover fresh produce. Senators will recall that fresh produce was excluded under the groceries order, but is included in this legislation. Fresh produce was excluded from the order because of the ban on selling below invoice price. As many fresh goods were perishable, the logic was that retailers should be allowed to sell them for whatever price they could obtain before they became unsaleable. However, as there is no ban on selling below cost in this Bill, there is no longer any logic in excluding fresh produce.

I understand what Senator Coghlan is trying to achieve but the complexity of the issue and the difficulties with enforcement and definition mean that I am not in a position to accept his amendments.