Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)

I welcome the Bill. Competition is highly important in the economy, never more so in the situation in which we find ourselves.

Section 2 of the Bill deals with sanctions. While I acknowledge that sanctions are needed, I sound a word of caution with regard to financial penalties that such penalties are more penal today than they were a number of years ago because funds are more difficult to access and it is more painful to pay them. We need to consider, therefore, the spirit of the scheme and encourage people to be law-abiding, as opposed to trying to wag a stick at them.

By their nature, fines are meant to punish, severely if the situation requires it. However, they are also meant to allow businesses to continue after they have taken their punishment. This is not just a point to be made in regard to this Bill, as we need to examine the business of increasing fines. We can have the best will in the world, but it is the adherence to the spirit of a scheme that is important.

Section 3 separates private and public enforcement. I agree with this change, as it brings clarity. It is correct that these two issues are being separated. Section 4 amends subsection (7) to add the requirement for a discontinuation of the abuse of a dominant position, where actions are contrary to Article 102 of the Treaty of Functions of the European Union, which is positive. Addressing the abuse of a dominant position in actions such as the sale of assets is very important. Large businesses can find themselves in a dominant position and, when times are tough, it is very tempting to abuse that position. The Bill must state clearly that this is not good enough. To be fair, setting this out in legislation is very important. Section 6 allows for persons not to be appointed as directors as a result of infringement offences, which makes sense.

Competition must be examined in all its aspects. In the retail industry rebates were common. In the business in which I was involved many years ago they were a scourge. One would buy products at the same price as everybody else, which was fine for a small business, but if it was not one of the favourites, it did not receive rebates. That placed a huge financial burden on new businesses trying to enter a sector.

Below cost selling is witnessed all the time. We have so-called milk wars, bread wars and so on. Using products, especially food products, to attract customers is wrong because it hinders primary production. While we are all used to cheap food which we have had for almost 20 years, or two generations, it has been holding back inflation artificially for a long time and the springs are beginning to stretch to a point where they can no longer handle it. We will see a situation, as outlined by Deputy Calleary and others, where production costs for fertiliser and other products will reach too high a point. We saw house prices reach artificial levels during the boom and they came down with a bang. It is the opposite with food products. Food prices are being held down to such a level that they will spring up and cause great trouble. Allowing below cost selling of food products cannot be allowed to happen as it will cause major problems in the longer term.

On the stranglehold of the multiples, there was a recent case in which a retailer went into a designer receivership and many of the suppliers to that supermarket chain were afraid to speak up for because, over time, their products would not be placed on the shelves. It is a question of deciding how to address these issues, which are not easy. While it is very easy to state the obvious, it is very difficult to fix the problems.

I have dealt with the Competition Authority and know it is under-resourced. While its intentions are good, it must pick cases on which it believes it will be successful. What it needs is a rapid response unit that will go in quickly and make an assessment. If it considers a case merits more attention, that should happen and, if not, it can pull back. We do not want there to be a perception that it is an organisation which is slow to act. It encourages some of the larger businesses to continue poor practices. An investigation into the cement industry, which is welcome, is under way. I have purchased a lot of cement and concrete in my time and it was remarkable when I sought quotes from four or five companies, that the cost was the same, regardless of the distance the product had to be transported. Some products might have been transported two miles and others 40, but it was remarkable that the cost was the same.

It is difficult for new entrants to gain access to markets when these practices are happening, but it is also difficult to prove they are occurring. Large companies have funds to fight these accusations and they use evasive tactics to get around them. However, we need to be aware of these issues and what is going on.

We import so many of our goods that it is difficult to generate competition in various sectors. For example, fertiliser companies were shut down. As a result, it is difficult to generate competition among fertiliser suppliers.

Incorrect labelling of sugar is also an issue. I was stunned when I visited a large multiple recently and saw a packet of sugar labelled as having been produced in Ireland. The sugar was not produced in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland, yet such labelling is allowed. This cannot be good for competition down the road because the customer does not have the option to buy Irish.

Farmers understand meat factories face a similar issue, while Deputy Calleary referred to the Bus Éireann issue which I have also dealt with. The State allocates significant sums to the company, yet it does not provide separate accounts for its school transport service and its bus network, which means the Government could be allowing a scenario in which a public business is being subsidised to the detriment of private bus companies. The Mazars reported stated it cost Bus Éireann €28 million a year to administer the school transport scheme, which equates to €8,000 per bus. This issue needs to be examined in more detail.

Competition in farming is different. Imported grain and beef, for example, are not produced to the standards applied in this country. This issue will have to be examined in the longer term because primary producers are not being rewarded for meeting the cost of complying with high standards. The Competition Authority should look into providing a service, whereby new businesses would be informed about and know their rights. This would give them a resource which would allow them to establish whether they were being treated in a poor fashion.

Social welfare fraud is another form of poor competition. Genuine operators are trying to deal with people who have an unfair advantage over them.

I welcome the Bill which is a move in the right direction. We need to embrace and encourage the true spirit of competition.

See this speech in context