Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In an ideal world, we would have had a consolidated Bill, which would have been even bigger. As it would have been consolidated, it might have been easier to follow. There are three elements to this. We had a competition Bill last year as well. It is a rolling programme of reform.

In opening the debate, Deputy Sean Fleming expressed concern about the decision to give responsibility for appointing a group to look at media mergers to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland rather than the Competition Authority. He suggested that this will rob the Competition Authority of its role in some way, but I think the contrary is the case. As other Deputies have said, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland is a body that studies media plurality and diversity. It is steeped in digital media as well as written media. I think it is better equipped than the Competition Authority to carry out this function. These bodies are already subject to the Freedom of Information Acts and that will continue in the future.

Deputy Sean Fleming also asked why we are not using the existing Office of the Ombudsman, rather than the new competition and consumer protection commission, as the enforcement body. We are taking our approach for a very good reason, which is that the existing Office of the Ombudsman does not have any of the legal background in this. Instead, it deals with public service issues and has no powers of enforcement of the sort we envisage here.

The below-cost sale of alcohol was a consistent theme during the debate. Different versions of the same point were made, for example when it was suggested that minimum alcohol pricing should be introduced. Obviously, a much wider issue of public policy that is not confined to competition law is at stake here. Competition law deals with fair trading rules and the abuse of dominance, etc. As many Deputies indicated, the below-cost sale of alcohol is being considered in the context of the effect on society of drinking rather than in the context of its effect on competition. I appreciate that it is an issue.

Deputies Tóibín and Pringle expressed some concern about weaknesses in the enforcement of competition in certain product lines. It is important to recognise that the Competition Authority is independent in the conduct of its business. It has very strong powers of investigation and can take action where it establishes that abuse of dominance or collusion is taking place. It is open to the public to bring any such abuses to its attention. We have strengthened the authority's enforcement powers, increased its number of staff, added to the number of penalties it can impose and supported the forensic nature of its ability to pursue these matters.

A number of Deputies asked why we decided to provide for regulations rather than a code of conduct. To put it simply, regulations are enforceable by an authority like the proposed new commission, whereas codes of conduct are typically used as guidelines, in the labour area, for example, and are not compellable by criminal sanctions. We are seeking to introduce compellability here. That can be done by means of regulation. It has been recognised by Deputy Ó Cuív and others that the flexibility associated with regulations means that they can adapt to changing circumstances. Something that is enshrined in primary legislation does not have that flexibility because it is there for all time.

The question of whether margins should be published was raised on a number of occasions. It was mentioned at the end of the debate by Deputy Ó Cuív. It is clear that such an obligation cannot be imposed on some sectors if it does not apply to all sectors. If we were to impose such an obligation, it would raise much wider issues relating to foreign direct investment and other matters. Deputy Ó Cuív might be interested to note that before he spoke, Deputy Naughten referred to some very useful work he did in 2006 and 2007 and which I remember well. By simply comparing farm gate prices with supermarket prices, Deputy Naughten was able to make a very good analysis of what was happening and the trends that were occurring. Deputy Ó Cuív repeated some of that analysis. One does not need to see the profitability numbers or accounts of individual companies to see what is happening in the marketplace. The new authority will have a role in looking at pricing. To be fair to the National Consumer Agency, it has published very useful North-South price comparisons. It has examined the treatment of the same product in different shops, for example. It has provided people with some very useful information.

People sometimes expect too much of this legislation. Deputy Ó Cuív outlined his belief that competition law should be used to assure a person a living, in effect. No competition law can deliver that. We have seen many companies go to the wall because cheaper products were imported or made available elsewhere. One cannot use competition law to guarantee a living to people in any business. One can use it to ensure the terms of engagement between the primary producers and the multiples are fair, and that is what we are doing in this legislation. The terms that are set out in this legislation are very substantial. They relate to issues such as having a written contract and being able to produce that contract for inspection. They specify how that contract should deal with all sorts of things that are sources of concern, such as the manner in which suppliers are affected when goods are put on promotion or when there is wastage or shrinkage.

If the forecast made by the supermarket is wildly wrong, what happens to the supplier's contact? These are real concerns which we can and will seek to address. The regulations are being drafted in parallel with the bringing forward of the legislation. Members' contributions in the Chamber today and the debate in committee will influence how we introduce the regulations and they will, of course, be presented to the House for consideration.

Deputy Thomas Pringle raised the question of whether we can regulate home-produced content on radio stations. This is not an issue that can be dealt with by consumer law. To be fair, we do use taxpayers' money through licence fees to support the provision of home-produced programmes and so on.

Deputy Mick Wallace raised the much broader question of why, in his view, some of the issues about which he is concerned are not adequately reflected in the media. Again, this is not a competition issue and cannot be dealt with through competition law. What we can do is ensure that where a media merger is proposed by a party who already has a very substantial interest in the market, it will be scrutinised not only on competition grounds but also on public interest grounds, taking into account such issues as diversity, plurality of ownership and so on, and a decision will be made following a full and open consultative process, with an advisory council established and people having the right to have their views heard. When the Minister makes his or her decision in such cases, the advice he or she received will be published along with the decision. It will be a fully transparent process.

Deputy Dara Calleary raised a concern regarding ministerial direction. The objective here is not to direct the competition and consumer protection commission in any area where it has independent freedom of movement and its own statutory remit. The provision in question is a general one. On issues of pay, for example, or the terms on which people are employed, the Minister would have the authority to offer direction. We can clarify those provisions as we go through Committee Stage.

Several speakers referred to resources, with some highlighting the saving of €170,000 through the establishment of the new agency. That saving is not the purpose of this legislation. It is simply the sum which arises from the removal of an existing board. The Bill will greatly strengthen the enforcement capability of the new body compared with that of the existing agencies. We recognise that without the teeth to match the law we are bringing in, we will not have an effective agency. There are real benefits in bringing together the two dimensions in which people view the market, namely, the consumer side and the competition side, the latter having to do with fairness of trading between producers. Both dimensions can have a positive impact for consumers if we get the balance right. The objective is to ensure consumers are informed, can exercise their rights and are not hoodwinked by unfair practices or misleading descriptions. If we have no barriers to entry, effective means of dealing with collusion where it occurs, and prevention of abuse of dominance, then we create a marketplace where there are good outcomes. Bringing those two dimensions of oversight of our markets together under the remit of one agency is a win-win situation. It creates a more pragmatic agency than we would have where the focus is merely on the fairly legalistic competition background, and gives teeth to the agency in dealing with consumer protection issues. We get the best of both worlds by bringing the two dimensions together under one agency.

In my opening speech, I recognised the work done in this area by Deputies Willie Penrose and Andrew Doyle. They highlighted many of the problems and issues that have arisen and greatly assisted us in our work.

Several Deputies raised the issue of the turnover limit of €50 million. Perhaps we have got it right in this regard given that one Deputy expressed the concern that small operators might be caught by unnecessary compliance while others felt the threshold should be reduced in order that suppliers would not find that some of those with whom they are dealing are not covered by the legislation. There is a balance to be struck here, and we must try to strike it at a point that is fair. Again, this is an issue we can tease out on Committee Stage.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae and others referred to the practice of vegetables being sold at 5 cent and argued that this does not serve anyone's interest in the long run. That is fair comment, although I am aware that at least one of the retailers selling at those types of prices did pay farmers the full contracted price. In other words, it is not altogether clear that such practices always mean the farmer loses out. We are trying to ensure there is fair practice in this area.

Deputy Peter Mathews raised the broader issue of how to promote an environment where small and medium enterprise can thrive. Some of the effort in that regard is general, encompasses broad supports for entrepreneurship, while some of it, as the Deputy said, necessitates a consideration of narrower issues such as how we can help small operators to survive in more remote areas. Tax policy is clearly a vehicle in that regard. Deputy Penrose highlighted the issue vividly by painting a picture of a future where there is no store between Mullingar and Longford. The pressure on small operators is coming not just from the business environment but also from the choices people make. That is something we cannot control through competition law, but we can try to ensure there is a level playing pitch.

Deputy Denis Naughten raised several issues regarding the beef trade which stray well beyond the scope of this legislation.

In regard to the regulations, as I have said, they are in production. The model was based to a considerable degree on that produced by John Travers. In fact, all of the aspects reflected in his model are reflected in the general powers I have taken in the Bill. We have a good basis here for drawing up regulations that will be effective.

I hope we will proceed to Committee Stage in a timely fashion, where we will have an opportunity to get into the detail of these provisions. I thank Deputies for their contributions and look forward to further discussion with them in committee. I take this opportunity to thank the officials who put a great deal of work into this legislation. It is a complex proposal, as Deputy Mathews pointed out, which deals with three different areas. Getting legislation through the Houses can remind one of waiting in a station through which the train passes only now and again. Once one has boarded the train, it is important to get the issues dealt with in an opportune way. This Bill sees the fulfilment of two commitments in the programme for Government. We will provide the time on Committee Stage to ensure every stone is turned and there is full transparency in terms of what we are proposing to do.

See this speech in context