Vol. 409 No. 1
20 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his attention has been drawn to the recent call made by the Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade that "hello money" in the supermarket trade should be banned by legislation; if he intends to respond to the director's call and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The payment or receipt of "hello money" is already prohibited under the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order, 1987.
May I ask the Minister if, subsequent to the enactment of the Competition Bill, the restrictive practices order to which he referred will continue to be in place?
The sort of case the restrictive practices order is designed to cover will, of course, be covered by the Bill. However, as a result of discussions I have had and representations made to me, I am considering at present the possibility of retaining that order for a transitional period. I have not yet finalised the amendment in that regard but I have it under consideration.
I take it from his reply that the Minister agrees that this reprehensible practice should continue to be banned. May I ask the Minister to explain to the House how effective he thinks the new Competition Bill will be in this area? For example, who does he think will initiate a prosecution, if such a prosecution is necessary, in circumstances where the restrictive practices order is no longer in vogue and the Bill has been enacted after the transitional period to which he referred?
There will be no prosecutions under the Competition Act, as it will then be; they will all be civil proceedings. It will be open to any aggrieved party to take civil proceedings if he so desires.
Can the Minister name any supplier to a big supermarket chain who will take such a civil action? No one is going to do this.
That is a matter of opinion.
Be sensible, they could not afford to do it.
This is the point at issue. I did not mean to use the word "prosecution" in the sense of criminal law but in terms of a civil action. Is it not the case that having regard to the fact that the industry is dominated by multiples and so on, a supplier could not afford, by virtue of his need for that market, to initiate such a civil action?
That suggestion has been made and I will certainly think about it. It seems to be only in the grocery trade that this suggestion is made. The terms of the Bill seem to be perfectly satisfactory to everybody else.
That is not so.
Apparently those in the grocery trade portray themselves as feeling intimidated by the two dominant groups within that trade. If somebody is damaged by, for example, the abuse of a dominant position by one of these people I find it hard to accept that they would not take proceedings but would prefer to continue to be damaged. Up to now they have not had the opportunity to take such proceedings and the Bill will give them that opportunity.
Does the Minister not appreciate the choice they have to make between being damaged or wiped out?
A final question from Deputy Durkan.
Would the Minister not agree that in the event of a supplier taking a civil action against a chainstore that he is unlikely to be in a healthy trading position afterwards and that——
We are having much repetition on the same subject.
——as a result an amendment is required to this proposal?
If he was blacklisted as a result that in itself would be an abuse of a dominant position — it would be an anti-competitive practice — and he could get damages for any losses he incurs.
Question No. 21.
I am terrified by what the Minister is saying.
It is a matter which can be debated on Committee Stage of the Bill.
