Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I recognise that this is a complicated issue. The danger is the law of unintended consequences. The type of regulation sought by Senators will not deliver what they wish it to do. Individual companies, in the publication of profit returns, do not disaggregate product by product. They do not detail the profit made on potatoes, beef and so on. That is not how companies make their returns. Company returns are made under internationally recognised rules. Ireland has always taken the approach of applying international rules. We do not set sectoral standards in respect of individual standards, requiring that just because we do not like the cut of a particular sector it must make returns in a manner that does not apply to any other sector. I do not think this is the way to go about dealing with the issue. Beneath this there are legitimate concerns, some of which were identified by Senator Hayden. For example, there are certain products that one can buy more cheaply in the UK than in Ireland from the same retailer. According to the National Consumer Agency, which conducts surveys in this area, differentials have come down in recent times, although they still exist. The issue is to what extent these differentials are justified. The way one tackles this is not by seeking to place discriminatory rules of profit publication on individual sectors.

As stated by Senator Hayden in her commentary, we have to know what it is we are concerned about. We cannot on one hand say that some retailers are charging too little and this is undermining the corner grocer and on the other hand say they are charging too much because their prices here are not as cheap as they are somewhere else. The market dictates where price points arise. Irish consumers should perhaps be more vigilant in terms of their choices. It must also be accepted that consumers are under a great deal of pressure. The evidence is that they are shopping more keenly and, in the grocery sector in particular, are shifting towards cheaper and discount outlets. We cannot stop this and should not seek to do so. What we need to do and what we are trying to do in terms of this legislation is to ensure that in the relationship between a producer and a large retail multiple the rules of engagement are fair. The transparency we seek is in that contract being published, available for inspection by the Competition Commission and including certain fair play rules in the manner in which it deals with different elements, be that "hello" money, special promotions or anything else. These are the matters for which we are seeking to provide. We are not seeking to provide that there must always be a product margin of X in any particular good or service. We cannot deliver that. At the end of the day, this is a competitive market.

I know that Senator Darragh O'Brien is frustrated that he cannot move his amendment dealing with an ombudsman. To be honest, the debate has moved on beyond the. The ombudsman scenario arose when the intention was to have not regulations but codes of practice, all of which were to be on a scout's honour basis, with the ombudsman then adjudicating on whether there had been fair play and so on. We made a decision a long time ago that a voluntary system was not going to be possible and that a regulatory system would be necessary. The issue of who should ensure enforcement in the regulatory system and whether we should establish a new quango then arose. Senator Barrett would be berating me today if I were to propose the establishment of a new consumer and competition commission in groceries while we already have a consumer and competition commission for every other sector. We are not providing for an ombudsman for groceries because there is already a consumer and competition commission that deals with every sector. We are not setting up a new agency to deal with one sector when the existing agency has all the powers, experience and so on to deliver what is required. That is the thinking behind it.