Business Opinion: The Groceries Order has once again reared its not so pretty head. The latest body charged with looking at whether the ban on below-cost selling of packaged groceries is a good idea has reached the same conclusion as the previous two; it is anti-consumer and drives up prices.
The real question is whether the recommendation of the Consumer Strategy Group that it be revoked immediately will prove any more effective than the earlier recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission in 1991 and the Competition and Mergers Review Group in 1999.
One thing is for sure, the supporters of the order will stage a vigorous defence of it.
The arguments for and against the retention of the order are summarised neatly in the as yet unpublished report of the strategy group. The arguments for retaining it include:
These arguments for revoking the order clearly held sway with the Consumer Strategy Group. In addition it took into account that the big international multiples that operate here can get around the order - if they wish - through their own inter-company accounting.
It also believes the order works against consumers because it stops retailers passing on the benefits of substantial long-term discounts from suppliers - which can be up to 18 per cent. The money, which runs into the millions is, just pocketed by the retailers. This, in many ways, is "the elephant in the kitchen" in the whole Groceries Order debate and the highlighting of it is probably the biggest contribution of the CSG to the debate.
All of this, however, will not amount to a hill of beans in the coming debate without some one to press the point that it is bad for consumers. In any previous debate over the Groceries Order the voice of the consumer has been conspicuous by its absence. By contrast the proponents of the order have worked away feverishly both behind the scenes and in public.
The Minister for Enterprise Trade & Employment, Micheál Martin, seems intent on engineering a similar situation this time around. He has already indicated that once the group's report is published he will commence a three-month consultation process on whether or not to revoke the order.
Ibec, which champions the order on behalf of food and drinks companies, has already come out swinging and Rgdata - which speaks for the independent retail sector - is also reported to have commenced lobbying.
No one has taken, or appears likely to take up, the cudgels on behalf of the consumer in the coming debate. The Consumers Association of Ireland is a busted flush and has been for years.
The only body that could conceivably represent the consumers in the debate - the CSG - will be wrapped up once its report is published.
If Mr Martin is serious about a real debate on this issue - and not just preparing the ground for another cave-in to the pro-Groceries Order lobby - he must find a way for the consumers' voice to be heard in all this.
The most obvious course of action is to fast-track the other main recommendation of the group; the establishment of a National Consumer Agency that would incorporate the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs and be a powerful independent consumer advocate.
He should announce the establishment of an interim board of the NCA - drawn from the members of the CSG - and charge it with putting the consumer case in the debate on the Groceries Order.
Alternatively, and this would show some political courage - he should announce the order is going to be revoked and restrict the consultation period to what measures are needed to allay the genuine fears of its supporters That would be putting the consumer - and not the suppliers and retailers - at the heart of policy making.
jmcmanus@irish-times.ie
