The public battle over the future of the groceries order, banning below-cost selling in the Irish Republic, is intensifying, with a government decision due in the next few months.
The chairwoman of the government-appointed expert group, which had blamed the order for the Republic’s high grocery prices and urged its immediate abolition, is now suggesting a compromise that would give both consumers and retailers “a fair deal”. In turn, critics have accused her expert group of using “false and misleading” evidence to justify scrapping the order.
Ann Fitzgerald, an investment specialist, who now heads the National Consumer Agency, told a parliamentary committee that she accepted that, if the ban were removed, there was a threat of large multiples trying to put small retailers out of business. She felt this could be taken into account in any revision of the order “so we end up with a good wording”. Suggesting “a fair deal” compromise, she said the order had to ensure pricing was transparent. That meant allowing consumers to benefit from the off-invoice discounts that retailers got from suppliers, while protecting the smaller shops from predatory pricing.
However, several committee members challenged Fitzgerald over a finding in the report that a basket of 20 branded goods in the Republic costs 113 more than elsewhere in the EU, mainly because of the below-cost ban. They claimed the prices used were “false and misleading”, a view supported by RGDATA, the family grocers’ organisation, which has called for the finding to be withdrawn.
One committee member, Phil Hogan, said neither Fitzgerald nor her expert group had produced any evidence to show “that abolishing the groceries order will lead to sustainable lower prices”.
The chairwoman of the government-appointed expert group, which had blamed the order for the Republic’s high grocery prices and urged its immediate abolition, is now suggesting a compromise that would give both consumers and retailers “a fair deal”. In turn, critics have accused her expert group of using “false and misleading” evidence to justify scrapping the order.
Ann Fitzgerald, an investment specialist, who now heads the National Consumer Agency, told a parliamentary committee that she accepted that, if the ban were removed, there was a threat of large multiples trying to put small retailers out of business. She felt this could be taken into account in any revision of the order “so we end up with a good wording”. Suggesting “a fair deal” compromise, she said the order had to ensure pricing was transparent. That meant allowing consumers to benefit from the off-invoice discounts that retailers got from suppliers, while protecting the smaller shops from predatory pricing.
However, several committee members challenged Fitzgerald over a finding in the report that a basket of 20 branded goods in the Republic costs 113 more than elsewhere in the EU, mainly because of the below-cost ban. They claimed the prices used were “false and misleading”, a view supported by RGDATA, the family grocers’ organisation, which has called for the finding to be withdrawn.
One committee member, Phil Hogan, said neither Fitzgerald nor her expert group had produced any evidence to show “that abolishing the groceries order will lead to sustainable lower prices”.
No comments yet