Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this important legislation. There have been many examples in recent years where the fixing of prices has had a large-scale negative impact on the consumer, and consequently this legislation is important. Equally important, however, is the legislation's effectiveness, and I have raised this point in respect of all legislation introduced to this House. Since I entered the Dáil, which was more than a year or two ago, I have seen countless examples in which the House, with the best of intentions and the best will in the world, passed legislation that was meant to address a particular issue. Two, three or four years later, however, Members found that despite such good intentions, for some unknown reason someone had decided to circumvent it and the situation had continued.

There have been anti-competitive practices within the banking system in recent years. A number of banks have pulled out of the country having created competition that was not positive but was extremely negative. It undermined the economy, after which having reached a certain point, the aforementioned banks withdrew from the situation when the going got tough, thereby leaving the economy and the consumer in this jurisdiction in a highly serious position. This has been done on countless occasions.

I refer to another graphic example. Local authorities receive much criticism and abuse, some of which is justified, but they used to operate a waiver system for refuse collection services throughout their respective functional areas. It then was decided that private enterprise could do the job more cheaply. The only difference was that private enterprise operators, while competing on the same routes and providing the same service, did not provide such a waiver. Consequently, after four or five years, all the waiver applicants would be left with the local authority and a classic example of this took place in County Kildare. This development left local authorities carrying a huge social responsibility burden and effectively created an indirect subsidy for those against whom the local authorities were competing. I could never understand the reason this issue was not tackled. I brought it to the attention of certain people, both in the local authority and elsewhere, at the time as it unquestionably was anti-competitive. It gave a hugely unfair advantage to those who were competing on the basis that, on the one hand, there was one group providing a service that entailed a cost by way of a social responsibility or social charge, while on the other hand, another group was providing the same service at a much lower rate and which was of precisely the same amount involved in the waiver system. This is not a criticism, simply a statement of fact. I cannot understand how this was allowed to continue and why the Competition Authority did not get involved, but that is what happened.

Although I accept the legislation envisages it, many anti-competitive practices are ongoing at present in regard to both the financial markets and the market speculation that takes place in regard to commodities. We know that at times of low interest rates commodities become very acceptable areas for speculation and investment, including short selling. The competition authorities, not just in Ireland but throughout Europe, need to focus on this area as a matter of urgency with a view to ensuring the consumer and the broader economy does not suffer as a result of the playful antics, for want of a better expression, of those who can afford to speculate and invest in a way which removes competition from the area by virtue of the strategic approach they adopt in regard to certain investments.

One can apply this point to many areas. Even in broadcasting, complaints are regularly received from independent broadcasters to the effect that they are not being fairly treated in regard to the public broadcaster. There are swings and roundabouts, and points for and against on this issue, but it is an area that needs to be examined to ascertain the extent to which competition is applied on an even basis - on the so-called level playing field we hear so much about. If it is not, we must ensure at least some attempt is made to address the issue and set matters right or, if not right, at least come to grips with identifying the full extent of the problem and trying to ascertain what can be done to make the system fair.

Anything that is fair, equitable and open should be proofed. Whether it may give the appearance of fairness, openness and competitiveness, it needs to be proofed. The practices going on from time to time are a clear indication that everything is not above board and that some peculiar practices occur which seem to be incredibly supportive of or conducive to certain forces in the market to an extent that is above and beyond the ordinary.

The last speaker referred to the use of certain products as loss leaders. This issue has been submitted to the Members of the Oireachtas in recent months and a question mark arises as to why it should be so convenient and essential that alcohol is used as a loss leader. Of course, the purpose of this exercise is to target a certain group of people at a time of economic stress. When the younger generation feel times are tough, they feel bad and they need some release from what they see as their imprisonment. Therefore, they tend to take this route which is readily provided for them.

We must address the possible damage being done to society as a result of the cynical use of alcohol as a loss leader, which both promotes the sale of alcohol itself and seriously disadvantages those who operate licensed premises. We need only consider the falling numbers of those patronising licensed premises to find proof of this. In addition, we must remember the extent to which the use of alcohol as a loss leader by the major multiples is having a detrimental effect on rural society and changing the whole structure of that society. Instead of going to a pub for a drink, people find it more convenient to go to a house party, where there are no controls over consumption, sale, times or anything else. As a result, damage is being done to our society.

There are many such practices, although I do not propose to go into all of them as we all know what they are. It is high time we made the legislation work and challenged the people for whom the legislation was intended with a view to saying to them that this legislation is here for a purpose, not for somebody to circumnavigate or to come around by a devious route on the advice of some clever dude who puts its upon him or herself to say they have found the ultimate in ways and means to get around this and they can now ignore the legislation. Now is an appropriate time to do this. It is a time when people are more focused on making sacrifices and, as a result, they do not want to see somebody erode their hard-won gains.

See this speech in context