Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chuir roimh an t-Aire agus cuireann Sinn Féin fáilte roimh an Bille seo atá ag iarradh iomaíochas an tír seo a feabhsú. Fáiltím freisin Bille a oibríonn in éadain caimiléireacht agus a cruthaíonn níos mó freagracht agus cuntasacht i measc an phobal gnó. Fáiltímid reachtaíocht a íslíonn costais gnó do gach duine, muintir gnó agus custaiméirí freisin.

However, we in Sinn Féin have serious concerns regarding this legislation. We believe the legislation needs to be strengthened and, more importantly, must form part of concurrent policy initiatives that enhance competitiveness, promote economic growth and deliver jobs.

It is recognised that corrupt practises that undermine our economy are not the sole preserve of the private sector. For years cronyism has had an undue influence on the economic management of this State, with successive Ministers placing personal advantage above that of the State and successive Governments handing over our economy to bankers, speculators and developers.

This issue has been exposed by McCracken, Moriarty et al and more recently with the fiasco in the banking sector. It is a reflection on the previous Government that the IMF and EU had to push for draft legislation to tackle corruption.

I am sure the irony of the IMF-EU calling for measures to tackle price fixing, cartelism and the abuse of dominant market position is not lost on anybody in this House. The troika, we are told, is the only body we can turn to in this situation. The troika is not open to negotiation and imposes so-called solutions, including profiteering interest rates. It is a body that the Government should, if it could, put under the provisions of the Bill but that is a debate for another day.

Sinn Féin supports the measures in this Bill to tackle corrupt practises. However, the provisions of the Bill do not fully address the issue of corrupt practises, nor will it lead to greater competitiveness in this economy. It is right that stringent provision is made in criminal law to convict and penalise those guilty of the most obvious corrupt practises. It is right that the Bill increases penalties for those who pursue corrupt practises which negatively affect our people and our economy.

The intent behind this legislation is to strengthen competition law enforcement by ensuring the availability of effective sanctions to deal with infringements of competition law. Sinn Féin is concerned that the Bill does not provide for civil fines, such as those for infringements to competition as called for by the Competition Authority. The Competition Authority sought the provision of civil fines to deal with abuses of the so-called non-hardcore infringement. Central to this is the abuse of dominant market share, including a refusal to supply, predatory pricing and exclusivity agreements.

We remain concerned that the absence of a provision for civil fines will impact on the ability to stop these types of abuse. Many large, well-capitalised businesses can engage in predatory pricing to close down smaller local businesses, thus developing a market share that inhibits choice and competition resulting in higher costs to consumers.

This is a real issue for many local businesses, farmers and suppliers working alongside multinational firms. The development and implementation of a civil fine mechanism would deal with the abuse of a dominant position. It would strengthen the provisions of the Bill and further safeguard consumers and local businesses.

I hope the Minister will revisit this suggestion and amend the Bill to provide for civil fines to tackle corrupt practises alongside the more stringent provisions he has outlined. I am sure his officials have the ability to redraft this legislation within the Constitution to deal more stringently with the issue of abusing dominant market positions.

Multiples create a top level price and force all suppliers underneath that. This is a toxic, artificial market equilibrium which has the effect of forcing out suppliers. Many multiples advertise that they are major supporters of Irish suppliers but still force local farmers and small businesses to supply below cost. This is not support; it is, in fact, the destruction of local markets. The proof of this is that growing acreage and the number of growers in the State have shrunk in practically every horticulture sector over the last 20 years. This has happened for two reasons, namely, cheaper imports and the abuse of a dominant market position.

Many farmers selling to international multiples do not have a choice: they are being dictated to. If they seek any level of renegotiation, they are at risk of losing their contracts. Retail prices are being held steady, or in some cases increasing, while supplier prices have been forced down. There is a strong feeling amongst suppliers that the implementation of existing competition law is one-dimensional.

If there is no recourse to civil fines or there are other issues that impede fair competition legislation from being developed, there is an obligation on the State to find other mechanisms and solutions. We are concerned that the Bill does not oblige the Government to respond to the issues raised by the Competition Authority. Particular issues that impede competitiveness may require specific Government action and-or legislation in the future.

Best practice in Europe places a responsibility on government to respond to a report by the relevant competition authority within a specified timescale. In Italy, the relevant competition authority has the ability to table legislation for consideration. In this State there is no obligation to consider, let alone act upon, the recommendations of the Competition Authority.

If the Government is serious about dealing with corrupt practises, it should include a clause on the obligation to respond to recommendations of the authority. Such a response must outline the Government's proposed actions with regard to each recommendation.

My further concern deals with the Bill being taken as a stand-alone element to promote a more competitive economy and deliver growth and jobs. The legislation is to be welcomed in so far as it tackles corruption, but it will not on its own deliver growth and jobs, drive down costs for individuals and deliver on competitiveness. To date, deregulation in the energy market has forced prices upwards. Deregulation in the taxi market has left prices high and resulted in an increase in the number of taxi drivers, each of whom is struggling to make a living.

Competition on its own does not equate with lower costs. The selling-off of telecommunications networks across the State delivered huge profits for some individuals and businesses but resulted in increased bills and a lack of investment which now means our broadband infrastructure lags behind that in the rest of Europe. The impact of previous sales of assets should cause the Government to pause for thought. In these cases, competition in service provision has actually undermined our national competitiveness and the economy. This legislation will only contribute to reduced costs and increased value to the economy if it is implemented alongside additional policy interventions.

I worry that this House often spends hours debating the colour of the carpet while ignoring the elephant in the room. We are tinkering at the edges of competition in a very minor way, although much greater issues need to be dealt with. We cannot promote economic growth while taking €3.6 billion out of the economy in the next budget. We cannot continue to pay off bondholders and at the same time allow indigenous businesses to grow and become more competitive. It is right to look at competitiveness within the economy, but, importantly, we need to address how competitive we are on the global stage. To date, the Government has continued to undermine our economic competitiveness. In a downturn we need investment rather than austerity.

The determinants of competitiveness are education, infrastructure, energy provision, indigenous business and innovation which have all suffered owing to a lack of investment under the Government. We still await the commencement of work by the Government on tackling upward-only rent reviews and there are regressive business rates. Each of these factors affects the competitiveness of small businesses.

The rate of nvestment by the Government in education, as a percentage of GDP, continues to be lower than the OECD average. This is true in the primary and secondary sectors which comprise the foundation of our knowledge economy and the key to the future competitiveness of the State. There is below average investment in the third level education sector, the key driver of research, development and innovation, yet the Government is seeking to increase student fees. The Minister needs to explain how continued under-investment in education promotes competitiveness. It is another example of the disconnect between the Government and reality. The previous Government was disconnected also. It claimed it wanted to build a knowledge economy, but it took money out of the education system and built a construction pyramid instead. The current Government promises a smart economy, yet it cuts the education budget in order to pay money to speculators in the bond market. How smart is that? I am proud that Sinn Féin was to the fore in ensuring there would be no rise in student fees in the North. If we are to promote innovation, research, development and learning, we need to get the foundations right. We need to tackle corrupt practice, but we also need to invest in education, at the very least at the level of the OECD average.

If we are to grow an economy and promote competitiveness, we need to update the quality and reduce the cost of telecommunications. The cost of telecommunications in the State is almost 10% above the EU average. Only 0.5% of broadband connections are made through fibre; the OECD average is 12%. If we are to compete with other nations and are serious about innovation as a driver of employment, we need to invest in infrastructure. That is why Sinn Féin promoted broadband roll-out as part of a stimulus package. This would have an immediate effect on the progression of a schools building programme by delivering jobs immediately, enhancing our competitiveness and promoting innovation, research and development in the medium and longer term.

We have been successful in attracting foreign direct investment and this work must continue. We have yet to realise fully its contribution to the economy. There are vacancies in certain global corporations based in the North and the South, and the local supply side is not properly plugged into foreign direct investment. This area must be developed. Global corporations are employing some of our most gifted and best educated. They benefit from and commercialise the expertise of Irish workers. However, this has been to the detriment of indigenous business. Expertise developed by the education system that should be building Irish-owned businesses has been lost to global corporations. This is a form of an internal brain drain. We need to incentivise the development and growth of indigenous businesses and support research and development and investment in innovation by Irish-owned companies to allow them to compete and grow in the global market. It is worth remembering that high-tech industries do not locate in Silicon Valley owing to the cost base or a favourable tax environment; they do so because of the networks and high-tech expertise that create a desirable level of competitiveness at that location.

We face a challenge to develop networks of research and expertise. Sustainable foreign direct investment and indigenous business development will benefit from the development of an ecosystem of expertise and excellence. Maximising our potential as a centre of expertise and excellence requires the maximisation of our resources at this time of financial difficulty. The use of our research and development resources across the island is disjointed and inefficient. We have universities competing for students across a similar range of subjects on an island of just 6 million people. Research and expertise are spread too thinly between competing third level institutions. An all-Ireland skills strategy implemented across universities and centres of research and development would replace competition with co-ordination, deliver greater value for money and promote economic growth and expertise-related competitiveness. Such co-ordination would also allow for the greater draw-down of EU support and increase access to programmes such as the Seventh Framework Programme. I urge the Government to pursue this matter urgently with a ready and willing Northern Executive, particularly the Minister for Employment and Learning.

I thank the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this Bill. There is much in it that Sinn Féin can support and there is much to tackle corruption to safeguard local business and deliver savings to the people. We believe the Bill can be further strengthened by providing for civil fines. However, in the absence of a consistent, comprehensive approach to promoting competitiveness in the economy across all Departments, the Government is effectively tinkering at the edges. I hope the Minister will review the legislation to deal more effectively with the abuse of dominant market position and work with his colleagues across the floor of the House to lay the foundations for economic growth, job creation and enhanced competitiveness. Níl a dhóthain ann sa reachtaíocht seo agus ní dhéanfaidh sé an-difríocht do phostanna agus do thacaíocht i gcúrsaí eacnamaíochta. Caithfidh an Rialtais i bhfad níos mó a dhéanamh.

See this speech in context