Seanad Report: The provision of significantly increased fines for breaches of the Groceries Order did not necessarily imply that it was going to be retained, the House heard.
A section of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, 2005, providing for maximum fines on indictment of €60,000 was agreed at the committee stage debate on the Bill.
Derek McDowell (Lab) said there had been some discussion as to whether the prices order as it related to certain groceries should be retained or not. Could they read the raising of the fines as an indication that the Minister intended to retain the order?
Minister of State Michael Ahern said the Restrictive Practices Groceries Order of 1987 had been considered by the Consumer Strategy Group and by the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, as to the merits or otherwise of the order in managing grocery prices.
All arguments in relation to the Groceries Order would be considered by the Government before any decision was made, and all interested parties would be invited to submit their views as part of a national consultative process.
"I understand that some parties have interpreted the provision to increase fines for breaches of the Groceries Order as a signal of some sort as to the future of the order. This is not the case," said Mr Ahern.
What they were seeking to do in the Bill was to bring outdated fines for breaches of consumer protection legislation up to date. It would be remiss of them to fail to do so just because a particular order happened to be the subject of public debate at present.
Mr McDowell said he believed the order should be retained. It was a necessary guarantee of protection against the abuse of a dominant position by large supermarket chains. It seemed very strange that legislation was being amended when the Minister was not sure if it would be kept in place.
Mary Henry (Ind) asked why St Bricin's military hospital in Dublin was suitable for Defence Forces personnel but not for members of the public. She noted that Willie O'Dea had stated recently that the hospital could be used to help ease the situation in the acute hospitals.
Apparently some people had looked at it and had decided that it was not fit for public patients.
"What's the matter with it? Surely the defence personnel are entitled to the very best of treatment. What is even worse, I believe about a million was spent on rewiring the place in the not- too-distant past and on making wheelchair access better," she said.
Dr Henry urged the Minister to explain why this money had been spent, "and yet the place apparently is unsuitable for the treatment of patients."
Leader of the House Mary O'Rourke said that if St Bricin's was fit for members of the Defence Forces, she did not understand why other people could not go there, too.