Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Bill. It is estimated by the former director of the Competition Authority that anti-competitive practices cost this State approximately €4 billion per year. That is a huge amount of money when one considers, as Deputy Mattie McGrath mentioned, that €700 million was paid to bondholders of Anglo Irish Bank last week. If we could address unfair competitive practices the State would be in a much better position and we would not be in the ridiculous position in which we are now of having to pay off bondholders and implement massive cutbacks in the social welfare budget in the coming weeks.

Deputy McGrath mentioned the price fixing cartel that operates in the concrete industry, which has received a good deal of publicity recently. It highlights the extent of the problem we face. It is a huge burden on the taxpayer, given that the State and the taxpayer are the biggest customers of the concrete and quarry industry. Through our capital programme we pay over the odds to companies that have agreed the prices they would charge for products. I have seen figures that estimate the cost to the State and the taxpayer from the price fixing operated within the concrete and quarry industry to be €2 billion. It is amazing that practice has been allowed to continue and there has been no serious examination of it. In preparing for my contribution on the Bill I read that complaints were made going back to the 1990s about the operation of price fixing and cartels within the concrete and quarry industry, yet no investigation was commenced, nobody was pursued for it and the Competition Authority has been toothless in dealing with it.

There was an announcement in recent days that CRH is moving its share transactions and its centre of business from Dublin to London and to the stock exchange there. Perhaps it is doing that because it was conscious of the bad publicity that has surrounded the cartel in which it is the main operator to ensure it inflated its profits and prices and put other businesses and operators out of business. Perhaps there is a further reason other than its dealings in shares and trading that it is moving its centre of business from Dublin to London.

Deputy McGrath said that the Competition Authority is ineffectual, of that there is no doubt. I do no know how effective it could be but I have read that its directors complained in October last year that the embargo on public service recruitment has resulted in the staff in the office of the Competition Authority being reduced from 59 to 40. How can it be effective in monitoring competition in the economy when the blunt tool of the embargo has reduced the number of staff in its office? When one considers the cost effect of price fixing by the cartel operating in the concrete industry on the State and the industry's customers, it would be in the interest of taxpayers to ensure that the Competition Authority can investigate that practice, yet the State, in the interests of taxpayers, is enforcing the embargo on the authority which has resulted in a reduction in its staff. The Competition Authority cannot assist the Director of Public Prosecutions in pursuing prosecutions because it does not have the necessary staff. It can carry out only one investigation per year and can only hope to complete that if it is not required to do other work on mergers and takeovers. It is a farce. This legislation will be useless, when enacted, unless the Competition Authority has the necessary staff resources to investigate these practices. We hear a great deal about cost benefit analysis from the Government side of the House and given that anti-competitive practices are costing the economy €4 billion a year, great benefit would be derived from giving the Competition Authority powers and resources to ensure it can fulfil its remit and investigations, pursue prosecutions and ensure that these practices do not continue.

When introducing the Bill yesterday the Minister said that section 4 will give the Competition Authority new rights to pursue several enforcement measures or several remedies in cases it pursues. These remedies include forcing companies to discontinue their unfair practices, to cease or adjust their dominant position within the market in which they operate and that is it. The remedies do not include the imposition of civil fines, therefore, there is no deterrent for companies to cease what they are doing. They can be sure that the Competition Authority does not have the resources to investigate and pursue them and if the authority were to pursue them, all the companies would have to do is give an undertaking in the court that they will discontinue what they are doing from this point on. There is no remedy available to the State to punish such companies for all the profits and unfair practices from which they have benefited during the years in which they have been engaged in them by way of imposing fines that will hit their directors and owners in their pockets.

There is an argument that civil fines may not be constitutional under Article 38.1o, the interpretation of which is that the imposition of fines is the imposition of a punishment and should be treated as a criminal matter. Surely we should test that. This legislation, which should include provision for civil fines, could be tested in the courts and they could establish if it is constitutional. We should address that once and for all rather than having competing legal opinions as to whether it is constitutional. We should strengthen this legislation to provide for the imposition of civil fines and it should be tested by the courts. Civil fines can be considered without requiring the full rigours of a criminal prosecution and proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases could result in civil fines being imposed on a company where a jury reaches a conclusion based on the balance of probabilities. Companies will only be deterred if they realise their market dominating practices can hit them in their pockets.

The debate on this Bill refers repeatedly to the role of deterrents in ensuring competitive practices. However, deterrents will not stop these criminal practices because criminals only worry about getting caught and paying for their crime. If people see an opportunity they will grasp it. Unfortunately, this Bill does not provide a real deterrent and for this reason I ask the Minister to consider amendments on Committee Stage to include civil remedies.

See this speech in context