Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

I am sharing time with comrade Deputy Ross.

I thank the Acting Chairman, Deputy Joe O'Reilly, for the opportunity of speaking to this new legislation, the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2011. I welcome the debate as it gives us the opportunity to examine the issue of competition, competitiveness and the radical changes in the country over the past couple of years. It also deals squarely with enforcement and the penalties issues.

It also provides an opportunity in the House for us all to face up to the reality of where we are going and what type of country we want. The banks, the church, business leaders and politicians all have taken a major hit on confidence and respect over the past few months. The people voted for change and reform and it was the same old story. They got U-turns and the same old cronyism. Is it any wonder the people are fed up and the country is in such a mess? We need action on this issue. We have had enough talk. The people are crying out for proper and effective leadership.

On the competition issue, and before I get down to the brass tacks of the legislation, we need to ask ourselves how a country can be really competitive if, for example, Anglo Irish Bank, which is now operating as the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, will continue to use taxpayers' money to pay unguaranteed unsecured senior bondholders. We cannot get out of the competitive mess we are in if we keep doing this. On 2 November, the Government allowed Anglo Irish Bank to pay a single unguaranteed unsecured senior bond to the value of almost $1 billion despite enormous public opposition. Nobody listened except members of the Technical Group. On 25 January 2012, Anglo Irish Bank will go ahead again and pay out a single unguaranteed unsecured bond to the value of €1.2 billion. I raise these issues because they are connected with the competition that we need. We cannot be competitive on the Irish market or on the international market if we still have these matters around our necks.

I want to put forward the idea to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, that we should enter immediate discussions with the European Central Bank to have the promissory note withdrawn and to remove this toxic private liability from the State and the taxpayer. The Government should seek support from our European partners in this endeavour on the grounds that removing the obligation created by the promissory note would reduce our debt to GDP ratio to approximately 87%, easing the State's transition back to the international bond markets and assisting in reducing the deficit and returning the economy to sustainable social and economic development.

Finally, the practice of using taxpayers' money to repay the promissory note must end. I call on the Government to intervene to prevent Anglo Irish Bank from using taxpayers' money to repay the unguaranteed senior bondholders and I say this in the context of the debate.

The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen competition law enforcement by providing for new and increased sanctions and penalties. Section 2 provides for the amendment of section 8 of the Competition Act 2002 which will increase the levels and range of sanctions available to the competent authorities in their enforcement of competition law. There are important sections in the Bill in that regard.

When we are dealing with the competitive issues, I regularly hear the Taoiseach and Ministers state that we never put forward other solutions to problems. Let me take a simple solution in the economy dealing with competitiveness and jobs. The Irish betting shops have told me that they can create up to 500 jobs if they are allowed to open for winter evening racing on selected nights when racing and important football matches are on. There is a sensible proposal. These shops will also contribute an extra €5.5 million to the Exchequer through the extension of opening hours. Of course, there will be additional PRSI contributions through new jobs created.

Another sensible proposal is that there is need for an urgent review of betting legislation to allow for the introduction of new technology in betting shops to allow them compete effectively with online, iPhone and mobile betting platforms. The Government needs to introduce a fairer system of taxation of betting in Ireland that brings all platforms into the net. The current levy of 1% paid only by betting shops is unfair. A possible option would be like that which there is in England, the proposal to make the source of the bet the point of liability and that all betting providers must have a licence to bet in that market and to ensure compliance and fairness for all operators. The Government should examine a gross profits tax model for shops to replace the 1% levy. There is a sensible proposal which would create 500 jobs and help those involved and interested in sport, but also bring in €5.5 million in extra tax revenue which could be used to fund the special needs assistants. I put forward these ideas as sensible issues.

On the competition issue, we also need to face up to the reality that we need to deal strongly and effectively with the unemployment issue. Both issues are strongly linked. Ireland's unemployment crisis continues, with almost 450,000 people on the live register, ongoing job losses and poor economic growth. We must consider whether austerity is working. Most reasonable people agree that austerity alone will destroy the country. If the Minister speaks with small businesses, they will confirm that they are being hammered by high rents and insurance costs. I regularly meet people in my constituency who have been forced to let go one staff member, or perhaps two part-time workers because of these factors. We need to regenerate the sector. The number of people who have been on the live register for longer than one year continues to grow and now accounts for more than 40% of those signing on. We must tackle this serious situation.

The more money that is taken out of the economy, the less there is that can be spent in the small economy. Deputy Donohoe referred to wealth and profit, but these are not the issues. Rather, sharing wealth and burden sharing are the real debate. We should not be afraid to consider the examples of good practice across the sector.

Section 4 addresses the right of action of the competent authority and inserts a new section 14A to provide for separate public enforcement provisions. As with the original section 14, this provision gives the competent authority the right to take action in the Circuit Court or High Court.

I welcome the debate on competition and I hope the Government gets its act together and returns people to work so that we can all get out of this mess and start to build a new, inclusive republic that puts citizens at the top of the political and economic agendas.

See this speech in context