Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2011 and on the subject of competition generally. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation may not acknowledge it while he is in his present position but he would have previously agreed that competition is not something we do well in this country. The extent of the problem is suggested by the fact that only 32 criminal convictions have been achieved since 2002. I cannot help but believe that a lot more is happening underneath the statistics. These 32 convictions involved a number of smaller players and, while there should be no distinction, there are concerns that the bigger players are still using their weight to stymy competition. These bigger players have yet to be investigated or prosecuted.

This Bill was published under the memorandum of understanding with the troika. There is satisfaction that it was published on schedule and before the end of quarter three but I am concerned about the rush across every Department affected by the memorandum to publish legislation ahead of that deadline. All the Departments wanted to be the good boys and much of this legislation is now in the queue for Second Stage debate in this Chamber. I congratulate the Minister on getting the Bill through that queue. However, despite the publication of these reforming Bills we are no closer to our goal of enacting them. The rush to publish legislation to keep the troika happy has diluted the original aims set out in the programme for Government and the various election manifestoes.

The programme for Government rightly sets out ambitious targets on competition and addresses the many areas of the economy which continue to hide from the full force of competition and the benefits it can bring. Given the Minister's track record, I am confident he will be able to achieve these objectives but this Bill falls far short of the programme for Government's ambition. I ask him to outline in his concluding remarks the timescale for implementing the more ambitious and important legislation outlined in the programme for Government.

Everybody agrees that the cost base is out of kilter. Over the past several years, significant adjustments have been made to our cost base, with labour costs in particular decreasing significantly compared to our EU partners, and we have made some efforts to reduce energy costs. We have also worked on transport costs although, as an island nation, many elements of transport are outside our control. In regard to the cost of inputs, we are still dependent on conditions outside our control. The cost of agricultural inputs has, for example, experienced extraordinary increases this year. We are championing agriculture but nobody is highlighting the increasing costs that are eating up the gains that have been made.

In the many sectors of the economy over which we have control, however, the State is sponsoring shelters from competition. This is particularly apparent in the transport sector, which does not provide a level playing field. A range of new bus services has been introduced over the past several years between towns and Dublin Airport and along suburban routes in the cities and larger towns across the country. These routes responded to the changing places in which people were living in a way that the old State run system was not able to do, whether because of a lack of thought, ambition or innovation. In nearly all the cases in which new routes were being introduced, particularly for bus services, the Department and Bus Éireann did their best to block their introduction. If they did not block them, they suddenly had the bright idea that there was customer demand to introduce their own route. All Members of the House have received correspondence from independent coach operators who made substantial investments in their businesses in introducing new routes that responded to consumer demand, only to find the State-sponsored organisation on their tail with new, flashy State-sponsored services. That is just one example.

No one can say we have a fully competitive broadcasting industry in this country. We must pay a tax in the form of the licence fee. Anybody with a television and a radio must pay the fee. One has no option. We have a choice in what stations we watch and the radio stations to which we listen. People living outside Dublin tend to listen to independent local radio station, but these stations do not have the same rights or access to the tax revenue that the State-sponsored organisation has. For as long as this continues it will cost jobs and creativity in the independent sector. We do not have a level playing field for the broadcasting media. The Government and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, have signalled that they intend to address this issue, but it would be good to see a timeline as to when that will happen.

It is all very well to introduce legislation to increases penalties and strengthen the law, as we are now doing, but what we need is not new legislation or new penalties but a complete change in mindset at official and State company levels where competition is seen as something good that improves services and innovation in service delivery and can increase the bottom line and protect and create employment. The current mindset dates back to the early or middle part of the last century, when the fledgling State needed to protect services from the big beasts that surrounded us. There is no need for us to be in that space anymore. We must have confidence in our abilities and confidence that State companies and services can be run well, efficient and innovative and no longer need the shelter of that mindset or the protection of a protectionist law.

Everybody agrees that the Competition Authority needs more resources, although the Minister danced a little around this point in response to Deputy O'Dea last night. The areas it investigates are technical and complex, while the companies it investigates are well resourced and have many ways of hiding their actions. Therefore, we need to give the authority not only more resources but also more powers. In the investigation of white collar crime, particularly in the banking sector, extra powers were needed and these were introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill last summer. We are aware of the lengths to which people will go to avoid detection of white collar crime. When one considers competition and breaches of competition law, one will note that for many companies, false competition and protection from competition are very important to their bottom line. One can be sure they are using the same evasion techniques and tactics to avoid detection if - it is a big if - the authority pursues them.

We must assess whether the Competition Authority is fit for purpose in a 21st century open economy that is trading with partners all over the world and which is being used by some of the biggest companies in the world for business and to make a profit. In the justice area, for example, we brought forward the Criminal Assets Bureau as an international model. Every week different police forces and enforcement bodies from throughout the world come to this country to see how it operates, with a view to replicating it. In fairness to the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter - I disagree with him on virtually everything besides this - he intends to replicate the bureau at European level. Can we or do we wish to do this with the Competition Authority? Can we say the authority could be replicated across the world as a model of good practice and as a model that will detect offences and deter people from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour? I do not believe we can, but that is not to say we should not set it as an ambition. The Minister intends to reform the authority, which would be a reasonable and fair ambition to set for the new authority.

I do not favour unfettered competition, a situation in which a big bulldozer comes in, clears all around it and sets up shop. That is not competition. That leads to what we have seen happen around the world. On our neighbouring island one can see the effects of unfettered competition in what has happened to the retail sector. However, unless we have the right debate about competition and face the fact that the State has so much in its mindset and legislation that does not foster good competition, we will not be able to move forward.

In many sectors there is the appearance of competition; there are a lot of players and offerings and the consumer is purported to be happy. However, when one digs under this, the reality is very different. One of these sectors is the retail sector. I was a member of the previous enterprise and employment committee under the chairmanship of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Willie Penrose. That committee spent a number of days in 2009 examining the retail sector. The big multiples proclaim that the reason prices here are so much higher than those in Northern Ireland, elsewhere in the United Kingdom and across Europe is the cap imposed in retail planning guidelines. They also say our cost base is higher, as well as the cost of transportation. The committee examined this and the planning issue. The Minister is interested in this matter and the reports are available. The position is not as clear cut as they claim. We also examined their pricing policies. We were treated to two days of utter evasion of the questions asked in the attempt to seek information. What was striking was the number of lobbyists accompanying every retailer and the number of former Members of the House, from both sides, who were monitoring the hearings. I remember thinking we were onto something, given that so much attention and resources were diverted to a day of committee hearings. I have maintained my interest in this area since.

Deputy Heather Humphreys spoke about farmers and what was being paid at the farm gate. This is a very serious issue. What is being paid at the farm gate is very different from what is being paid in the supermarkets, yet the only investigation in this area was into the Irish Farmers Association. The IFA raised this concern on behalf of its members, and the only raid we saw was not on a head office of any of the multiples but on the head office of the IFA. In trying to draw attention to competition breaches and where there might be a problem, the body which had called attention to it was raided and those against whom the complaint had been made appeared to have been let away with it. The country is trying to create a culture of whistleblowing, in which people will step forward and give information, but that does not offer a very good example. It does not say to organisations campaigning on this issue that they should come forward with information and that it will be investigated. It says the opposite.

I hope the new committee will return to and advance that investigation. It is time to revisit the issue because there is no doubt that there is the appearance of competition in the large retail sectors, particularly in food, but the reality is very different. It would not require a huge amount to investigate this issue. Has the Competition Authority not just the financial resources but also the legislative resources to investigate it? Can it state to consumers who are shopping every week and struggling to pay their bills because prices are so much higher: "These are the reasons consumers are paying so much more and this is what we can tackle"?

Energy is another sector in which there is the appearance of competition, but is there actually competition in it? There is not. Last year, two State companies set up a price war for electricity. One made an offer that was 25% to 30% cheaper than that of the other State company. It hooked people and reeled them in with flashy advertisements and promotions but within a few months of so doing, the price rose again. While there are some independent operators in the system, they are struggling against the might of the two State operators. They are struggling to get a presence in the marketplace. Moreover, they also are struggling against a culture shared by all Members - I do not distance myself from it - to protect State companies. However, by so doing, Members are depriving people of lower energy prices, lower retail prices and lower prices across the board. One can introduce all the legislation one wishes but until that mind set is changed and challenged, one will be barking up the wrong tree.

The only way to change and challenge this culture is to review the Competition Authority. An objective should be set that within two years, the Irish Competition Authority will be the one to which people around the world will come and which they will seek to replicate in their countries. They will do so because it is the authority that has delivered results to its country's consumers and has brought investigations to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Síochána that have resulted in people paying some of the prices outlined by the Minister in this legislation, including fines and jail if necessary, for breaches of competition law. To achieve this objective, consideration must be given to conferring some of the powers that are available in the commission of investigations model to the Competition Authority. Moreover, some of the powers that were made available to inquiries into child abuse should be considered. Some of the aforementioned powers in respect of inspection and the power to follow up complaints must be made available.

In addition, far more resources must be made available. While I acknowledge the budget to so do is not there, it must be allocated by finding it from other areas that are less important to ensure delivery on the ambition of implementing a restructured and reformist Competition Authority that will investigate those breaching or possibly breaching the State's competition laws, rather than investigating those who make complaints.

See this speech in context