Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. The Labour Party is astounded that we have arrived at this impasse, and it illustrates - if this was required - the failure of the Government to ensure the Competition Authority had the appropriate membership level. The authority appears to have been carrying a vacancy in its membership since January 2009, which is close to a year and a half ago. One must ask where does the level of incompetence in this Government begin or end or who was asleep at the wheel on this important issue?

I would not be as great an advocate of unbridled or untrammelled competition as my colleague, Deputy Varadkar, and I have referred to the issue on numerous occasions in committee. The mad rush to liberalise the taxi industry, as referred to by Deputy Varadkar, illustrates the point. We have competition-driven regulation in that industry and while there was an obvious need to increase the number of taxis, the business is now falling asunder. People cannot pay their road tax or for the licence. Unbridled competition can leave many casualties in its path and a free-for-all based on an ideological imperative has left much devastation in its wake. I will refer to that later.

What amuses me about the Competition Authority is that very often it is the small business arena that is its focus, as Deputy Varadkar noted. I chair the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment and we have been examining the supplier-retailer relationship. The failure of the Competition Authority in this regard is notable, and it has used every excuse under the sun in the following up of important issues essential to the industry. "Hello money" under various guises has been demanded by large retailers from suppliers, and many of these suppliers operate in vulnerable areas. Many of the people involved were not in a position to come forward about this, some because they expressed fear.

This finding is contained in our recently issued interim report that has been sent to the Minister. The Competition Authority stood idly by while this went on. Had it been a small industry, the authority would have been in like a shot. Bringing competition to its nth degree, even in the professions leads to the yellow pack. Many barristers for instance take on cases and never leave a client unrepresented, which is never acknowledged in the various reports and recommendations emanating from those eminent bodies. If one knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, one will eventually reach a yellow pack situation. When ensuring there is representation, one must also guarantee its quality. I did not want to discuss this today, as I am a barrister and I do not want to get into that debate, but these are the types of activity that annoy me greatly. For these reasons, I do not give unqualified approval to everything the Competition Authority does. I would be less than honest if I entered the House and engaged in a hypocritical cant, namely, that the Competition Authority and everything it does are great. Often, the authority pursues lines with an ideological imperative, as illustrated by my colleague, Deputy Higgins.

Deputy Varadkar is slightly mixed up, as it was the Labour Party that introduced the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2007 to amend section 4. I was astounded when the Government rejected it. This Bill proposes to amend section 35 of the Competition Act 2002 to permit the appointment of three temporary members to the Competition Authority. It will enable the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation to appoint temporary members to fill current and upcoming vacancies, thereby ensuring that the membership exceeds the statutory minimum required to allow it to function properly. Obviously, this is correct if the validity of decisions made by the authority is never to be impugned. Therefore, we support the Bill in principle to ensure the authority is properly constituted, putting it in a position to carry out its important functions. We acknowledge that proper and appropriate, but not untrammelled or unbridled, competition will play an important role in ensuring that our country becomes competitive and will help us to deal with the current economic circumstances. We acknowledge that competition is important in this respect, but I emphasise that it must not be confetti to the wind where the consequences are allowed to fall wherever.

The number of members in the authority has fallen to three people, but was this not obvious to the Government? It was certainly obvious when Mr. Prasifka retired six weeks ago. Surely these matters were anticipated, as he did no retire suddenly. Surely he gave notice. Steps should have been taken promptly to deal with the situation and obviate the need to introduce legislation that only facilitates the appointment of whole-time members for a short period. The Minister envisages this to be six months, but he reserves the right in legislation to appoint people for a further six months. I understand the reason. For example, the Public Appointments Service, PAS, might not have made a final decision or people might need to give notice before leaving their current positions to take up the appointments. This is fair enough and I see no difficulty with it. Whole-time members will be appointed by the PAS, an independent process. It is important that the PAS is independent in making its appointments, an aspect fully and unequivocally supported by the Labour Party.

Mr. Declan Purcell has been appointed chairman of the authority, apparently on a temporary basis until a full-time chairperson can be appointed. I understand the Minister is working on this under the recruitment process to which I referred. I acknowledge Mr. Purcell's previous role and work as head of the Competition Authority's advocacy division. He has a long and distinguished career in the public service. I anticipate that he will adopt a reasonable and commonsense approach to issues within his remit and will work hard to ensure that competition will benefit consumers and businesses alike. I hope he will not adopt an ostrich-like position and will instead take cognisance of the surrounding circumstances.

In particular, I hope he will note the attempts by large retailers to expand rapidly, often in out-of-town centre developments, by seeking to have retail planning guidelines significantly altered to suit them, but all under the guise that the consumer would benefit. In other words, it is always about the price. However, this would be to the detriment of corner shops, shops in small town centres and rural shops. These may not be as competitive in their prices, but they give a service, are well located and are open at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. when someone needs a pint of milk, loaf of bread or something else that he or she has forgotten. These social and value issues are as important as matters of price, which often appear to be the driving force behind the Competition Authority's view, thus effectively allowing the massive retail complexes to act in a hoover-style mopping up of potential footfall and leading to the eventual closure of the small shop outlets to which I referred. Many of those outlets act as more than just shops. They act as service outlets. When they have disappeared from the Irish landscape, as occurred in England when numerous shops went to the wall, a significant part of the country's rural fabric will have been eliminated. Only large retail stores will be left standing, a vivid replication of the Darwinian theory of evolution whereby only the strong survive. Perhaps the very strong will be on their own.

Who will judge the Competition Authority then? It is the master of all it surveys. It has made these decisions, but who is policing them? I have heard this question asked in academic circles and, sometimes, legal circles. What kind of a society will we have left? These questions must be asked. While the authority is within its right to look for value for consumers and to ensure businesses comply with guidelines, regulations and so on, it must do more. It must consider the social implications of its decisions and of the rush to the headland wherein the only determinant is price. The loss of small shops and the subsequent loss of vital jobs in rural Ireland will be the inevitable result, the whirlwind of a pure and unadulterated competition policy. We must tread warily and acknowledge that other factors are at play.

In the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment's discussions with the former chairman, my approach to these important matters differed significantly from his. I hope the new chairman and the authority in general will recognise these as important issues that cannot be air-brushed out of existence in the interest of an otherwise mad rush to embrace unbridled competition. As Deputy Varadkar stated, competition is not a god. Sometimes, it is a signal or an objective, but it should not be the be all and end all. This is what worries me about some of the decisions taken by the authority.

The Competition Authority plays an important role as an independent agency that reviews and examines mergers and acquisitions and, by the adoption of the best international practice, scrutinises important areas. The High Court quashed a decision by the authority to block the Kerry Group-Breeo merger. I understand the matter is before the High Court on appeal, so I will say no more except to state that I have a view. It is important to point out that a number of the authority's decisions have raised eyebrows and did not find favour at a practical level. My colleague, Deputy Edward O'Keeffe, has articulated these concerns several times at committee level.

I turn to section 4 of the Competition Act 2002. A source of major disappointment to the Labour Party in respect of this Bill is the Government's failure to use it to amend section 4 of the Competition Act 2002, which has given rise to consequences that were unforeseen when the latter was passed. The Government has reneged on commitments it gave early in 2009 to amend this section of the 2002 Act. It is regrettable that the Government, on foot of its abject failure in this regard, has let many people down. I cannot lay the blame in this regard at the feet of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. I congratulate him on his new portfolio. He is a straight shooter and I look forward to engaging in constructive discussions with him. In my opinion, the Minister will accept amendments and will listen carefully to what Members have to say. He has good acumen in that regard.

Nowhere in the 2002 Act is there a clearer diversity of views than in the section to which I refer. That was the generally held opinion among those who were present in the Dáil when the legislation was passed. The suggestion that consumers are solely interested in price is an appalling distortion of the position that obtains. Deputy Higgins has been to the forefront in the context of seeking to have section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 amended. He prepared and published a Competition (Amendment) Bill in 2007, which clearly specified that section 4 of the 2002 Act is an impediment to established negotiation practices, including those protected under trade union legislation.

The Government voted down Deputy Higgins's Bill in 2007 and ignored the implications for actors, self-employed artists, pharmacists and others. Members will recall that at that point pharmacists were at loggerheads with the HSE because it had taken unilateral action and would not negotiate with the Irish Pharmacy Union, IPU. It was never envisaged that the 2002 Act would prevent negotiations with representative bodies in respect of members who supply services to citizens on behalf of the Government. What has happened in the interim is, therefore, incredible.

As I recall, the Competition Authority was prepared to go to court in respect of Equity, the actors' union, which is a member of SIPTU, to argue that it had no right to represent freelance actors. Four or five years ago, there were some 5,500 such actors. Everyone is aware that very few actors, freelance journalists or others like them are in full-time, permanent employment. However, these individuals are still entitled to representation. Labour, above all other political parties, would cherish that right and fight for it to be recognised as a fundamental human right.

As Deputy Higgins has stated in the past, the right to collective representation cannot be swept aside in the name of competition. We have consistently argued that the correct response to the position in which artists and others find themselves is to amend section 4 of the Competition Act 2002. This would vindicate the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act 1906, Trade Union Act 1941 and the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and ensure that those to whom I refer and similar groups can organise collectively to better their own terms and conditions of employment and service. Why did the Competition Authority insist that artists, freelance journalists, artists, musicians and others who, as Deputy Higgins has stated on numerous occasions, do not, as a result of the nature of their occupations, enjoy continuous employment? Why should these people be denied the right to be represented by trade unions? Was this view driven by an ideological imperative? How could artists, musicians and freelance journalists be classified as "undertakings"?

The Government rejected the Labour Party's 2007 to the Competition Act 2002. As part of Towards 2016, however, it announced that following public consultation - surely it could have acknowledged that my party had advised it of the difficulties in this regard a year prior to the publication of Towards 2016 - it had "as part of its review of the operation and implementation of the Competition Act, 2002 ... examined the interaction between that legislation and provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts as regards the issue of collective bargaining for certain vulnerable workers". It is also stated in Towards 2016 that:

The Government is committed to introducing amending legislation in 2009 to exclude voice-over actors, freelance journalists and session musicians, being categories of workers formerly or currently covered by collective agreements, when engaging in collective bargaining, from the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, taking into account, inter alia, that there would be negligible negative impacts on the economy or on the level of competition, and having regard to the specific attributes and nature of the work involved subject to consistency with EU competition rules.

It is a matter of great regret, to those in the trade union and everyone else, that the Government has to date failed to bring forward the relevant legislation.

I acknowledge the Minister's statement to the effect that he intends to bring forward a comprehensive Bill. If the amalgamation of the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority had taken place, there would be no need for such a Bill. We were promised that said amalgamation would take place in 2009, again over one year ago. In his speech on Budget 2009, the Minister for Finance indicated that this amalgamation would form part of the rationalisation process. As someone who advocates caution above rushing headlong into rationalisations, amalgamations, etc., I am of the view that it is necessary to consider the consequences of one's actions.

We all know what happens when people make statements, off the top of their heads, as did the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, in respect of decentralisation in one of his budget speeches. We have witnessed the ramifications of this decision in that regard. I would support decentralisation but we all saw when happened when the former Minister made an impulsive statement. There were implications in respect of expenditure, etc., as a result of what happened on that occasion. People in Mullingar are extremely disappointed that the long-promised decentralisation to their town has still not occurred. Planning permission and land have been secured but a building has not been constructed. Some 300 people are awaiting decentralisation to Mullingar.

We want to ensure that initiatives such as decentralisation are dealt with properly, that competition law will be updated and that the new competition body will be created. In that context, the Labour Party will be bringing forward amendments on Committee Stage in order to ensure that section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 will be amended in a way that will reflect the intention of the Legislature when the Act was originally passed. We are seeking to ensure that people will have a right to collective representation and collective bargaining rights and to be represented by a trade union, whether it be Equity, as part of SIPTU, the IPU, the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, the Irish Dental Association, IDA, the National Union of Journalists, NUJ, etc. Rights such as those to which I refer are fundamental in nature and the Labour Party believes them to be extremely important.

My party is giving careful consideration to the code of practice relating to those who carry out business in the grocery sector and wants to ensure the protection and promotion of fair trade between retailers and suppliers. Those we have met have indicated that if action is not taken now, there will be few suppliers because most of them will have been wiped out. I refer, in particular, to those involved in the agriculture industry in this regard. How can farmers be expected to continue production when supermarkets, etc., are selling cabbages at two for the price of one? Farmers will eventually be wiped out because it is uneconomic to operate at the level to which I refer. It is important, therefore, that we should examine this matter in detail.

The Labour Party proposes that a statutory code should be introduced and that an ombudsman be appointed to supervise this. The authorities in Great Britain have made progress in this regard. The relevant committee has, following much detailed consideration, put forward suggestions in this regard. People may state this is in the interests of consumers and that a form of protectionism is being proposed but it is no such thing. Eventually, the suppliers of this country will be wiped out and there will be more unemployment. Ultimately, Members are all consumers and shoppers and many have sons, daughters, nieces and nephews who are employed by those suppliers. Were they to be wiped out, a greater ream of unemployment will be created and we will have nothing to call our own. We will possess a large import industry to bring goods into this country.

Therefore, I look forward to that Bill. I hope the joint committee will have produced a comprehensive report that probably will be of assistance to the Minister. While it probably would mean a further delay of a few weeks to the Bill, I hope the joint committee's full report will be available by June. It would make a contribution to the Minister's assessment of what may be required in this context. I note the majority of the joint committee's membership also are members of the Minister's own party and undoubtedly will outline at parliamentary party meetings what the joint committee intends to achieve in that regard. The Labour Party supports the Bill in principle but will table one or two amendments to reflect some of the views I have echoed in this Chamber on its behalf today.

See this speech in context