Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I wish to share time with Deputy Clare Daly.

While I do not oppose the Bill, I do not see it as the be-all and end-all. I have a difficulty with competition, given the big failures in the banking sector and the housing market. This demonstrates that competition without regulation is likely to produce horrific results. The Bill has great limitations and has been produced because of the obligation included in the memorandum of understanding with the troika. The debate pack is useful in highlighting limitations regarding civil fines and a potential constitutional conflict.

At a time when incomes are being reduced, a corresponding reduction in prices is essential in order that purchasing power can be maintained. Clearly, the additional sanctions proposed in the Bill are welcome from that point of view. There is a differentiation between hard core and other offences in the context of companies abusing a dominant position in the market.

The briefing note we have received shines a good light on one difficulty. The Competition Authority has highlighted the complexity of the cases it tries to pursue and that it requires expertise and financial and physical resources. The fact that only 32 cases have been successfully prosecuted since the Competition Bill was enacted in 2002 indicates how difficult it is to pursue significant players. The authority has also highlighted that it is almost impossible to prosecute minor offences.

I welcome the provision to allow a private action to be taken by individuals who are aggrieved, but it is questionable whether they will have the wherewithal to do so because it will be a case of smaller players in the market taking on, for example, large multiples. A number of us have been briefed on the cement industry in which individuals have pursued the issues involved in the courts for years. The cost of using one product in the building of a house increased by €2,000 during the same period, while the same product was exported at a much lower price to countries with competitive markets. Clearly, there were warning signs regarding uncompetitive practices and that a cartel was operating in the cement industry. Perhaps it did not come to the fore before now because of people's desire to put a roof over their heads. Very often they have to do so under their own steam because the dominant arrangement is for people to purchase or build their own homes. The relevant section is useful, but it needs to be strengthened.

The institutional arrangements which provide for the merger of the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency will probably be useful. It is a pity the Government is using public sector reform as a code for cuts because there are great opportunities to put good, robust institutional arrangements in place which are simple and user friendly. This would make agencies more transparent and make them act in the interests of the people on whose behalf they are intended to act.

The fact the legislation has been introduced highlights a weakness in the political system in that nothing was done about this issue previously. One of the provisions proposed gives the Judiciary powers to call expert witnesses, a provision originally included in the Competition Bill 2002.

The broad increase in fines is welcome, but one must question the sanctions provided.

I do not support the jailing of people unless they pose a risk to the public. When we compare the sanctions applied in the case of white collar crime and those applied to regular criminals, there is an unequal arrangement. Often fines imposed are not a deterrent because they will be outweighed by the financial gain for a corporation.

There is no means to verify that retailers are demanding hello money. Discounts are funded by suppliers who are afraid, because of the dominance of the three major operators in the retail sector, that if they make a complaint, their products will be removed from the shelves. That fear is understandable. Therefore, it is difficult to see how what is proposed will happen in practice. Large retailers do not reveal their profits and there is no requirement to have a proportion of Irish goods on the shelves as happens in other European countries, although producers want other European retailers to take their products outside the Irish market. The groceries order was scrapped in 2006 to provide for enhanced competition, but there does not seem to be robust monitoring of the sector to see if it produced the intended result.

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government is looking at a reduction of the cap on floor space, which is not necessarily good for Irish suppliers. If we look at the dominance and locations of large supermarkets, they benefit from having large car parks because they can cover the costs involved. They wipe out many of the small suppliers, those which will create jobs and use Irish raw materials. The evidence is that indigenous industries import less and use more Irish raw materials, which is better for us because foreign companies tend to import produce. Therefore, there is a further knock-on effect on job creation.

The document pack provided by the Library and Research Service was particularly useful. Obviously, more legislation is necessary because this measure may be in conflict with Article 38 of the Constitution, under which civil fines can be imposed. That is what the Competition Authority states is required. When will that legislation be drafted or when will we know if it can be drawn up in the absence of a change to the Constitution?

See this speech in context