Ground Floor: I was surprised to discover that the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order was enacted in 1987. For some reason, I thought it had been around a lot longer. But then, if it had, I guess that my dad wouldn't have been able to call our corner shop a Cut-Price Grocer's back in the 1960s and 1970s.

The reason that it was "cut price" was that he aimed to shave a penny or so off the invoice price of our goods and nab business from nearby retailers - something that's forbidden under the Groceries Order.

Back then, the supermarkets had only begun their relentless march across the country that has culminated, thus far, in them becoming anchor tenants for so many out of town shopping centres with packed car park and overflowing recycling bins. In the 1970s many people still did their main shopping at their local corner store.

I don't know whether or not our shop would still have been trading in 1987 as my dad sadly passed away before then. As a family we'd talked about the changes in retail and sold the shop in the latter stages of his illness. I was a teenager before I ever set foot inside a supermarket and I was blown away by the experience. The thing is, a supermarket and a corner shop are two very different entities.

In fact, a supermarket and a large local store are still completely different. They are different with regard to size, choice and ethos. But they are all covered by the Groceries Order.

The main provision of this order, which is being talked about so much lately, is to prohibit the selling, or advertising for sale, of grocery goods below the net invoice price.

Any discounts or rebates given by the supplier to the retailer cannot be taken into account unless they are on the invoice in cash terms.

The original rationale behind this order was to protect independent retailers - like my dad. The affect of it now, according to many, is to artificially inflate the prices of certain goods.

According to the Competition Authority, the number of multiples in Ireland in 1988 was 149. Symbol retailers (like Spar and Centra) totalled 1,134, while there were 9,387 independent retailers.

By 2002 the number of multiples had gone up to 190, symbols were at 1,300 and independents had fallen to 7,200. If the aim of the Groceries Order is to maintain the number of independents relative to other retailers then it has already failed miserably.

The problem is that it presumes that people's choice of retailer is based solely on price. That an individual will choose to go to a multiple every time with price as the sole reason. Its supporters claim that, without it, multiples will attract consumers into the stores by luring them with loss-leading products at high discounts and then, when all local opposition has been blasted out of the water, will hike prices to levels higher than they were before.

I will always believe the worst of supermarkets. But I also believe that this Machiavellian scenario is complete nonsense. Competition between multiples will see to that.

Price is not the only reason why people shop at multiples. The main reason is demographic. In 1975, when I used to spend the summer working in our shop, many local people didn't have cars. Even fewer had freezers. Most of the housewives (and they were mainly housewives who came to us) did not work outside the home. They shopped on a daily basis and bought a high proportion of fresh food.

They also knew the price of everything within a mile of our shop and so, if we failed to compete, they would tell us and wouldn't buy whatever it was that we were "overcharging" them for. And their choice of brand regardless of the commodity in question was very limited.

In 2005 many consumers are living in suburban estates where cars are essential. Most have freezers and microwaves. Most are dual-income families who shop for groceries once a week (or once a month) and have freezers and microwaves. The reason that they shop at a multiple is because it's easier to park the SUV in a car park and load it up weekly than it is to find the time or the parking space to shop daily.

Most of them also know the overall cost of a shopping expedition but would certainly not be able to tell you the cost of individual items in their shopping basket. They also expect choice.

A local grocery store cannot compete with all of these demands. A local grocery store can't stock the variety of choice that a consumer now expects, can't provide the carparking space essential for people who are always on the move and can't compete on price on a whole variety of goods because they will never get the same terms as the multiples anyway. They can compete on service and convenience and exclusivity and people are prepared to pay for this.

The local store has become a touchstone for what we were and not for what we are now. Many independents have joined with a symbol to take advantage of the branding and purchasing power that it brings.

Real independents can only thrive by identifying a niche for themselves. And that niche will never be competing on the price of a loaf of sliced bread. It can certainly be competing on the price of locally produced or organic product. Or competing on the quality of "designer" foods. But the day of the local grocery store as a place where people do all of their shopping has long gone and no amount of restrictive orders will alter that.

We know from experience that you can't go back. My dad knew that. He would have changed our store. The Groceries Order has to change too.

www.sheilaoflanagan.net