Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Sometimes the precise terminology eludes me. The adjudicator is able to undertake an analysis of, for example, the price of a two litre carton of milk - let us say it costs £1.49 - and make a decision on the division of profits. Is Aldi opposed to a policy of adjudication?

Mr. O'Connor's statement that it would not be appropriate for Aldi to be "punished for the indiscretions of others" implies that there are indiscretions and bad practice in the trade. Laws introduced in the Oireachtas frequently impose a major onus on citizens and businesses. Legislation is invariably introduced in response to the indiscretions of the few, rather than the many, and to protect society against those who cannot live by high standards. The recent DNA scandal is a case in point. I presume the vast majority of suppliers to Aldi provide exactly what the company seeks. However, in the recent case, a small number of people across Europe decided that they would ignore all codes. As a result, a series of new regulations will come into force to ensure the unscrupulous few can no longer get away with such practices. I ask the delegates to address this issue. If there are indiscretions, do they not accept that it would be fair, in the interest of stopping the unscrupulous, to introduce a trade-off whereby everybody would have to comply with a mandatory code of practice? This would ensure those involved in what the delegates described as indiscretions and what others describe as bullying tactics or unfair practices were brought to heel and forced to comply with the high standards Aldi claims to observe.

While every group that has come before the joint committee has stated it does not want a mandatory code, none has argued that retailers do not abuse their dominant position over producers, nor has any of the them told us how we would ensure, other than by the introduction of mandatory codes and a food adjudicator, that everybody, not 80% or 90% of the market, would adhere to high standards. That is the nub of the issue.

Why are cars subject to a national car test when most people keep their vehicles in good nick, regardless of whether there is a test? The NCT was introduced because some people allowed their cars to fall apart. It imposes an additional burden on people and is unfair in the sense that it requires those who keep their vehicles in good nick to pay money to have them tested. That is simply how society operates and this is the nub of the issue. How would the delegates address the issue of unfair practice if they were in our position, other than by using the power of the law?