Vol. 524 No. 1
4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress she has made in her consultations with interested parties in regard to the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order, 1987; when she will make a final decision on this issue; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21814/00]
5 Mr. Creed asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she has finalised her deliberations regarding the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order, 1987, and the ban on below cost selling; and the decisions she will take regarding its future operation. [20968/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.
I have received representations from a number of interested parties in relation to the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order, 1987. In addition, both myself and the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, have received deputations, and meetings with other parties are in prospect concerning the matter. I am also studying the recent report of the UK Competition Commission which is relevant to this matter.
The final report of the competition and mergers review group which I published in May contains a recommendation, by a majority, that the groceries order be repealed and replaced by some form of legislation or regulation in relation to the grocery trade but not to include a ban on below cost selling.
I am at present finalising my consideration of this recommendation and I will bring my proposals to Cabinet shortly, after which a decision will be announced.
Where is the pressure coming from to repeal the groceries order? I am sure she has been told in the meetings to which she referred that the cost of items covered by the groceries order compared to the cost of items and the rate of inflation on items not covered by the groceries order, shows up very favourably and that food inflation is running at at least 2% less than the rate of inflation in this economy. Where is the pressure coming from to repeal this order and why will she not introduce clarity to the position? Why are we going on about it? I have cuttings from the newspapers which read, "Bread and milk will be slashed if Harney has her way". We have this image of a Bodicea in favour of the consumer, striking out.
As the Deputy knows, I do not write the papers, no more than himself. He has a bigger say than I do.
Later on, we have the Tánaiste being quoted as saying that she has an open mind and that she thinks that perhaps nothing favourable will accrue to the consumer. Which way is the Tánaiste feeling today and will she communicate certainty so that people know where we stand?
First, as Deputy Rabbite knows, I do not write the newspapers or the headlines. I am sure he is aware of that. Second, he asked me where the pressure is coming from. I do not think there is any pressure coming from any source except to say that every expert who examined this, recommended it, including the company law, mergers and review group established by my predecessor when he was at the Department. I gave an undertaking in this House, which I want to honour, that I will meet all the groups with a view on this. I will meet some groups on Monday. I also want to study the report in the UK. The figures quoted by Deputy Rabbitte will be disputed. However I am conscious that the UK report stated that the practice of persistent below cost selling operates against the public interest when conducted by major players such as Wm Morrison, Safeway, Sainbury's and Tesco, or those parties with market power, which I will bear in mind.
Does that not bear out my point of view?
As the Deputy knows, any expert group that has examined this, since it was first initiated, has recommended that it be changed. Others have said that if it is such a good thing, let us extend it to all sectors of the economy. The onus is on me, as the Minister, to consider all the issues, to form a view and to have an open mind before I bring proposals to the Government. I have an open mind – if something is fulfilling a need, we should keep it. If something can be improved as a result of getting rid of something, we should consider that. We should bear in mind what was said in the UK too. The evidence from the UK, where there is no such thing as a groceries order, clearly is not very satisfactory. Therefore, we would be foolish to ignore the findings in the UK.
On the timeframe for this, I draw the Minister's attention to a letter of 19 April which she sent to me and probably to a number of other Deputies, in which she mentions, in terms of the subsequent publication of the review group report, that within two months she would be meeting all the parties. However, she is telling the House today that she will meet groups and have further consultations next week. This is entirely unacceptable. Would she not accept that the uncertainty surrounding the Government's intentions in this regard is preventing investment in the industry, particularly in small retailing and food businesses, and that this order has been under suspended sentence now for almost four years? We need to bring finality to it.
Who has the Minister met? Has she met RGDATA or the large multiples? Who has the Minister's ear in this regard? Surely she can give us an indication if she will make a decision before Christmas, because in the Official Report of 20 April I asked her if she would make a decision within six months. She replied: "I hope it will be made much sooner than that. It will probably be made within three or four months". Six months have elapsed and we have no decision.
The Deputy asked whether I met RGDATA. I did and I met the IFA and several other groups and I have more to meet next week. I gave an undertaking that I would make no decision until I met all of the groups involved. On finality, any order of this kind will always be reviewed from time to time. It is not ever going to be written in stone. We will make a decision now. Successors of mine will make other decisions and give other considerations to this and other matters. The Deputy can take it that proposals will be brought to the Government during October in this regard.
The Tánaiste refers to experts and their unanimous conclusions but does she accept that there is a social dimension to competition policy? Does she accept there are other experts, including the unanimous view of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Small Business that concluded that it would damage the fabric of provincial Ireland if this were to happen? You will not permit me to quote, A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but may I ask the Tánaiste if she read the article by Ciaran Fitzgerald, the director of IBEC, who would be a soul brother politically, who said that tampering with the groceries order is not a real solution but an ideological one. He went on to say that tampering with the groceries order would do nothing for the price of mangoes in Moore Street or for the consumer. Does the Tánaiste agree with that IBEC view?
I discussed this matter with Mr. Fitzgerald on several occasions. I told the Deputy earlier I had an open mind. I am not a consumer of mangoes. The Deputy knows much more about mangoes than I do. I would hardly know the price of a mango. Mangoes are not covered by the groceries order as fruit and vegetables are excluded. Whatever we do with the groceries order will not affect mangoes.
Even if—
Deputy Currie is not entitled to ask a question as this is a priority question.
Last week in Cork I met people in relation to this matter. I regret the decision was not made earlier. I gave a commitment to meet everybody and for logistical reasons, it was not possible. I intend to bring my considerations to the Cabinet this month, October.
What organisation or individuals has the Tánaiste yet to meet and is she meeting with them next week in this regard?
Off the top of my head, I know I am to meet Senator Feargal Quinn, a Member of the Oireachtas, which I should do next Monday.
Did the Minister read the Oireachtas report which gave a unanimous verdict?
I read the Oireachtas report and I have spoken to several Members of the Oireachtas from every party, including my own and those of Deputies Creed and Rabbitte. I have consulted very widely in this matter and listened to the views of the various representatives. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that there is a social dimension. I said in this House before that I do not believe in the perfect market; that is why we need regulation. If we were to end up with one or two dominant players, then the fabric, not just of rural Ireland but also urban Ireland and the facilities and services available to consumers would be greatly undermined. We want to see fair competition and choice. Not everybody can drive hundreds of miles to an enormous multiple.
I have only one or two more groups to meet, one of whom is Senator Quinn and there is one other group – off the top of my head, I just cannot recall which one.
Will the Tánaiste clearly tell the House if she accepts that this paralysis is damaging to the industry and to confidence and has no substantial lobby behind it? It is purely an ideological crusade. Will she put it to bed? Will she frankly admit to the House that when it comes to the representations being made by the small independent retailers in Deputy Treacy's constituency and other constituencies, she has not got a hope in hell of putting it through the Fianna Fáil back benches? She does not lose face by clearly making a statement today that the groceries order will not be repealed.
A group established by the Government of which the Deputy was a member examined this issue—
—and many other issues.
—over four years. As it is an outstanding and comprehensive report, it is regrettable that this is the single issue that seems to have taxed Members of the Oireachtas. Nobody has written to me about any other aspect of the report, unfortunately because – and I have finalised my consideration and a memorandum has been circulated in relation to many aspects of that report – it is a very good report. However, it would have been a huge discourtesy to that group of people as volunteers, chaired by Deputy Michael Collins, if we were not to give due consideration to all the findings in that report and to then talk to those parties who wanted to see me and express a view. I do not have a closed mind and I am not an ideologue. I am not like Charles Handy, who said that if it is not broken, fix it. If something works we should leave it alone. We are not trying to do things for ideological reasons – we are trying to make things work. We want to ensure we have competition and choice and I do not accept that a failure to clarify whether it is staying or going has made any difference. It has made no difference to the representatives I have met – nobody has indicated to me that it has made a difference. They accept they were listened to fairly and that we discussed the issues openly and honestly.
Can Deputy Naughten and I announce that the Minister is not minded to repeal the groceries order?
The IFA does not want the order repealed.
