Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)

I wish to pick up on one or two points made by Deputy Clare Daly. One matter in respect of which she is wrong is the Glass-Steagall Act, which was introduced in the US in 1932. The Deputy stated that ultimately this legislation could not cope with developments in the banking system, the fall-out from which we are currently dealing with. It was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, rather than its lack of effectiveness, which laid the seeds for the collapse in the banking sector worldwide. If the legislation had remained in place - ensuring retail and investment banking would have been kept separate - then I have no doubt the disaster with which we are dealing would have been significantly smaller in scale and might not have happened at all.

Deputy Clare Daly stated that competition is not good for consumers and that it is a cul-de-sac. It must be remembered that vast numbers of people in this country remain in work. Ireland is the only country which is part of an external aid programme and which has a balance of payments surplus. Despite our major financial difficulties, we are producing a balance of payments surplus the value of which is comparable to many of the mid-ranking economies of the European Union. It is obvious that Irish workers have the ability to compete and trade very successfully in a competitive environment.

Let us consider the level of performance in the pharmaceutical, agricultural and green technology sectors. A large number of green technology businesses are based in the constituency Deputy Clare Daly represents. The level of performance to which I refer is being driven by Irish workers and Irish companies being competitive and recognising where competitive advantage lies and delivering it for their own benefit. The idea that the profit motive, of itself, is not capable of delivering increases in standards of living, employment and incomes is clearly wrong. It is a tragedy that so many people are out of work but there are still huge numbers of people who remain in employment. The latter still have jobs because they are in a position to deliver goods and services - which people at home and abroad wish to purchase - in a competitive manner.

It is clear, however, that there are difficulties with existing competition policy and with the environment to which this policy has given rise. Criticisms of that policy were made by members of the Judiciary when they were evaluating cases which came before them. When sentencing two participants in a cartel in May 2006, a judge stated that being involved in a cartel is theft and clearly spelled out why this is the case. In 2007 Mr. Justice Liam McKechnie stated:

[W]hile society has an interest in preventing, detecting and prosecuting all crimes, those which involve a breach of the Competition Act are particularly pernicious ... These activities in my view have done a shocking disservice to the public at large.

There is a real need to ensure that in the context of an economy which is so reliant on being competitive and which operates in the global arena, we must do everything possible to ensure that competition policy is fit for purpose.

There are three particular aspects of the legislation which represent clear progress. The first of these, to which previous speakers referred, relates to the fact that the sentences and fines relating to core and non-core crimes will be increased. This is an important development. Where I differ from Deputy Clare Daly is that I do not see profit as being bad. However, I do understand her point in respect of where seeking to make a profit can be transformed into greed.

See this speech in context