Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This is a targeted and focused Bill for the purpose of amending section 35 of the Competition Act 2002 to enable the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation appoint whole-time members, on a temporary basis, to fill current and upcoming vacancies in the Competition Authority. Upcoming vacancies would have the effect of reducing membership of the authority below the statutory minimum requirement and would impede the proper functioning of the authority. As a consequence of recent vacancies which have arisen in the authority, including the departure of the chairperson to take up another position, I have appointed an existing member as chairperson of the authority on a whole-time temporary basis. This appointment ensures that the authority is properly constituted in accordance with: the requirements of the Competition Act 2002 and can carry out all of its statutory functions. The amendment to section 35 of the Competition Act 2002 as provided for in this Bill and the subsequent appointment by me of temporary members will safeguard the integrity of the Competition Authority's workings and decision-making power.

I am concerned that an improperly constituted authority would be unable to fulfil its statutory obligations and that any decisions made by members in such circumstances would be open to legal challenge. Of particular concern are those functions specifically reserved by statute to the authority acting as a decision-making collective body. Those functions are as follows: making a declaration under section 4(3) of the Competition Act 2002 that a specified category of agreement, decision or concerted practice is not prohibited if it complies with the conditions set out in section 4(5); the power to initiate criminal proceedings for an offence relating to anti-competitive behaviour or practices under sections 6, 7 or 26, or for relief in civil proceedings under section 14 or 15C; the power to make a phase two merger determination under section 22; and functions relating to the authority's strategic plan, appointment of staff and annual reports.

Powers are also devolved from the EU to designated national competition bodies, which in Ireland's case is the Competition Authority. It is essential that the performance by the authority of its functions, for example making a decision to either approve or prohibit a merger, be made on a sound legal footing and not be subject to uncertainty as to validity.

Membership of the Competition Authority is currently governed by section 35(1) the Competition Act 2002, which provides that the authority shall consist of: a chairperson and between two and four other whole-time members, as may be determined and appointed by the Minister; a whole-time member appointed by the Minister to cover a period of temporary inability by a member to discharge his or her duties; and such number of part-time members as the Minister may determine and appoint.

Under the 2002 Act the appointment of a chairperson and a minimum of two other members satisfies the statutory minimum membership requirement. However, the appointment of a person to replace a member who is temporarily unable to discharge his or her function or the appointment of a part-time member, as provided for by sections 35(1)(b) and 35(1)(c), do not satisfy the minimum membership criteria.

The authority is currently operating at this minimum level, however upcoming vacancies taken together with some current vacancies, would have the combined effect of reducing the authority's membership below the statutory minimum. The authority has been carrying a vacancy at membership level since January 2009. More recently, the chairperson of the authority resigned with effect from mid-March 2010 to take up the position of Financial Services Ombudsman and two other whole-time members have indicated their intention to leave the authority during May 2010.

As I said previously and following legal advice from the office of the Attorney General, I have appointed an existing member of the authority to the position of authority chairperson. This appointment is for a period of just under six months, at which stage I expect that a chairperson will have been selected for appointment following an open Public Appointments Service competition.

The legal mechanism under the Competition Act 2002 in respect of replacing whole-time members is through the holding of a Public Appointments Service competition. The actual mechanics of advertising, interviewing and then taking into account the need for successful applicants to give some months notice to their current employers - possibly up to three months - means that the entire recruitment and selection process could take a number of months to conclude, during which period I must ensure that the authority can function with the requisite statutory membership.

This Bill will allow for the appointment of whole-time members for a short period to provide cover up to the point when whole-time members are appointed following the holding of a Public Appointments Service competition. The Bill provides that these temporary appointments will be made having regard to the competencies laid down by section 35(5) of the 2002 Act for appointment of members. That provision requires appointees to "have sufficient expertise in or experience of one or more of the following areas, namely - law, economics, public administration, consumer affairs or business generally", thereby ensuring that only suitably qualified and experienced people can be appointed to the authority, even on a temporary basis. The integrity of the authority's decision making power will continue to be protected both in terms of the number and quality of its members. The appointment of members under this legislation will be short term, for a defined period and will conclude when the whole-time members have been appointed under the open competition.

Following enactment of this Bill, I intend immediately to make two appointments to the authority. This will result in membership of the authority consisting of the chairperson and three whole-time members. This arrangement will prevail until successful candidates are appointed from the Public Appointments Service competitions that will be held.

I now wish to turn to the provisions of the Bill and explain what each is designed to achieve. Sections 1 and 3, definition and Short Title and citation, of the Bill are standard legislative provisions while section 2 is the core of the Bill.

Section 2 of the Bill provides for the amendment of section 35 of the Competition Act 2002 to allow for the appointment, on a whole-time basis, of temporary members, including a chairperson, to fill a vacancy occurring in the authority's membership arising from the death, retirement, resignation, disqualification or removal from office of a member. It is envisaged that these temporary appointments will be for a period of up to six months.

The Bill also provides that the Minister may extend this period of appointment for a period or periods up to a maximum of a further six months. It is intended that the provision allowing for an extension to the appointment would only be used in specific circumstances, for example, in the event that the recruitment and selection process is not finalised or the successful candidate is not in a position to take up his or her appointment within the initial six month time period.

As I said earlier, appointees to these temporary positions must, in the opinion of the Minister, possess sufficient expertise in or experience of one or more of the following areas - law, economics, public administration, consumer affairs or business generally.

The Bill will also provide that a temporary appointee remains eligible for appointment, through an open competition, as a whole-time member within the authority, unless he or she has been removed in accordance with the existing provisions of section 35(12) of the Act. That provision permits the removal of a member who has become incapable through ill health of performing his or her duties or whose removal appears to the Minister to be necessary in the interests of the effective and economical performance of the functions of the authority.

Following enactment of this Bill and the making of the necessary temporary appointments, my next legislative priority in this area will be the Bill to give effect to the amalgamation of the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency. Since being announced as part of the rationalisation plan for State agencies during the 2009 budget speech, my Department has been working with both bodies to ensure a smooth transition from the two separate entities to a single dual functioning body responsible for competition and consumer protection. As both bodies were established under statute, it is necessary to give effect to the newly merged body by way of primary legislation.

At the time the merger of the two bodies was announced, work on the review of the operation and implementation of the 2002 Competition Act was well under way. The submissions received following a public consultation process were being considered as was the report and recommendations of the advisory group on media mergers. Rather than give effect to the amalgamation of the authority and NCA in stand-alone legislation, to be followed in due course by legislation to amend, reform and update the 2002 Act, it was decided to introduce a single comprehensive Bill that will create the new consumer and competition body; update the existing competition law; strengthen the public interest test in respect of media mergers, in line with the report of the advisory group on media mergers; make some minor amendments to the consumer protection legislation; and give effect to the Government commitment under Towards 2016 regarding the exemption of certain specified categories of vulnerable workers from competition law.

While work on the draft legislation on this basis has been progressing, a number of other developments have arisen which have led to additional requirements in the Bill. The renewed programme for Government contains a specific commitment to implement a code of practice for doing business in the grocery goods sector to develop a fair trading relationship between retailers and their suppliers and to review progress of the code and, if necessary, to put in place a mandatory code. Provision to place a code for retailers and suppliers on a statutory basis will be included in the proposed Bill.

As the House may be aware, efforts are under way to explore with all the relevant stakeholders the possibilities of agreeing a voluntary code of conduct in the grocery goods sector which would respect the interests of all parties. This offers stakeholders the opportunity to develop a voluntary code most suited to the dynamics of the Irish grocery goods sector and which would form the basis is of any subsequent statutory code.

This all-encompassing approach to the draft legislation has to some extent delayed the legislation for rationalisation of the two bodies. I am, however, of the view that we will be better served in the long run by a single legislative measure that both establishes the new body and provides for a combined and updated consumer and competition code with appropriate enforcement provisions being given to the new body.

Work on the draft heads of this Bill is at an advanced stage and I intend to bring these draft heads to Cabinet within the coming weeks. Until the heads have been approved by Government, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the specifics contained in the draft heads. Deputies are awaiting its approval and subsequent publication, and indeed may seek to avail of the opportunity of this Bill before us to progress issues contained in the other Bill but I urge Deputies to wait. It is imperative that the Bill at hand be passed by the Oireachtas without undue delay so that I may appoint the members in sufficient time to avoid a reduction in membership levels below the statutory minimum. The matters to be included in the comprehensive consumer and competition Bill will be considered and debated in due course and no doubt in great detail, as is appropriate.

The Bill before us today is a short Bill but for all that an extremely important Bill. I look forward to working with Deputies on Committee and Report Stages and I will be happy to reply to any questions that arise. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I extend my thanks to the Oireachtas Library & Research Service for preparing a very good debate pack on this Bill and also thank the civil servants from the competition section of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation for briefing me on the contents of the Bill.

The Competition (Amendment) Bill 2010 amends section 35 of the Competition Act 2002 to permit the appointment of temporary members to the Competition Authority. This will enable the Minister to appoint temporary members to fill current and upcoming vacancies in the Competition Authority which otherwise would see its membership reduced below its statutory minimum requirement. The Bill will also allow the Minister to fill membership vacancies by temporary appointment without the requirement to hold an open Public Appointments Service competition, provided the person possesses, in the opinion of the Minister, sufficient experience and expertise in one or more of the following areas - law, economics, public administration, consumer affairs or business generally. In many ways the Bill addresses a lacuna in the 2002 Act which does not provide for the filling of casual vacancies on a temporary basis, pending competition for their permanent replacement. In that regard, the Bill is both sensible and necessary and for those reasons Fine Gael will support its passage in this House.

I express my displeasure that we must pass what is, effectively, emergency legislation in this way, in that the legislation was published only last Friday. The legislation is necessary because, if it does not go ahead, the Competition Authority will not be constituted legally and any decisions or determinations made by it may be subject to challenge in the courts. However, it would not be necessary if the vacancies had been filled when they arose and if competitions had been organised when vacancies arose. This was a failure by the Government and by this Minister or the previous Minister, to organise a competition for the vacancies when they arose. In many ways it is characteristic of the approach of this Government which is so often slow to act and react and so quick in its indecision.

In addition, it would not be necessary if a competition (amendment) Bill had been introduced before now. I believe it is three years since the review of competition law took place - it was around the time I became a Member of this House. Three years later a competition (amendment) Bill has not yet been brought to the House which is based on that public consultation. As I learned from the Minister today, the Cabinet has not even agreed the heads of that Bill. It should not take three years to review a piece of legislation and prepare an amending Bill.

Regarding the decision to merge the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority - which I support - that Government policy was announced in the budget of April 2009, again more than a year ago, yet we still do not have the heads of a Bill to effect that change. Government can be slow but it should not be that slow.

I wish to say something about the general principle of competition. I am a fan of competition and an advocate of strong competition authorities. Competition is good for consumers and for business in general - although perhaps not for specific businesses at any given time - and is good for the community. During periods of recession such as the one we now have, competition comes under attack from businesses and employees that are under pressure. In recessionary periods and periods of depression we always see the rise of protectionism, economic nationalism, businesses seeking subsidies or to create and protect national champions.

It is important that we, as parliamentarians and legislators, guard against this and stand up to these pressures in the interests of the community as a whole. Protectionism, economic nationalism, subsidies and monopolies might protect the few but this is done at the expense of the many. It is widely accepted that the legalisation of cartels, as part of Roosevelt's New Deal, prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930s by seven years. I reference the work of Cole and Ohanian in that regard. Roosevelt actually reversed that policy in 1938 to great effect. In Japan, it is well understood that government protectionism and the creation of cartels contributed to that country's "lost" decade. I would be concerned that some of the Government policies, for example, in regard to NAMA and banking, as well as some of its enterprise and employment subsidies risk doing something similar, however well-intentioned they may be.

It is also worth pointing out that a study by the Office of Fair Trade in the United Kingdom found that the benefits of enforcing competition law outweighed the cost, eightfold. I reference Fingleton in that regard.

In Ireland we know a lot about the difference between competition and monopolies. We know how the aviation sector worked when Aer Lingus had a monopoly that it sought to defend at all costs. We know how much things improved when competition came into the aviation market. Ryanair not only reduced the cost of travel but also opened up more routes and brought millions of tourists to Ireland. We know about the effects of monopolies in telecommunications. We all remember how difficult it was to get a telephone when Telecom Éireann had a monopoly, we remember the cost of using a telephone at that time and we know how much things improved when the mobile telephone market was opened to competition during the last rainbow Government. Things improved also when the fixed line business was opened to competition under the parties on the opposite benches. We know how the beginnings of competition in the energy market have now reduced the cost of energy by allowing Bord na Móna, Bord Gáis and Energia to enter the electricity market.

However, competition is not a god and we must ensure we do not allow it or the free market to become a secular religion. In a secular society where religion is no longer so important people sometimes turn competition and the free market, or even human rights, equality or climate change, into religions that cannot be questioned. It is important that we always question competition and do not adhere to it as if it were a principle that cannot be breached or as if it were a secular religion of the right.

Competition does not work all the time. Many of us who live in this city will know how the liberalisation - I hasten to say it was that rather than deregulation - of the taxi industry has thrown up a number of issues and problems. It certainly solved the situation whereby we had to queue for two or three hours to get a taxi but has created other problems. There is now a problem of over-supply and the incomes of taxi-drivers have been reduced to subsistence level and even below.

I am sure Members will agree with me that competition policy must serve the public interest. In many ways, the legal bar on the Government negotiating with general practitioners, pharmacists and dentists on services to be provided to the public has not worked in the public interest. Competition legislation should be amended in that regard.

For Fine Gael, our recovery will be built on growth and jobs, not on bailouts or retrenchment. To grow our economy and create jobs we need new investment and consumer demand. Restoring competitiveness will help to do both. A robust and independent competition authority has a crucial role to play in helping to restore competitiveness by breaking up cartels, preventing price fixing, market-sharing and bid rigging, breaking up monopolies, blocking undesirable mergers and through the advocacy role of competition authorities. We want a competition and consumer commission that has the powers, tools and people to do this. That means maintaining an independent executive decision-making board, taking the competition authority sector reports seriously and implementing them, or, at very least, offering a reasoned response to them.

I was interested in and did some research on the different competition authority reports into the professions and what they called "the sheltered sectors of the economy". There have been reports on liquor licensing, transport, casual trading, engineers, non-life insurance banking, architects, optometrists, solicitors, barrister, private health insurance and dentists. These reports go back as far as 1998 but few, if any, of the recommendations have been implemented. In the case of liquor licensing only one of four was implemented and in transport none was. I realise some progress is being made in the latter regard with the new Bill, but it has been slow coming and it is 11 years since the relevant report was issued. In casual trading only one of ten recommendations was implemented, for engineers one of two was. Concerning non-life insurance there were 21 recommendations but very few were implemented. Regarding architects, only three of 11 recommendations were implemented. There has as yet been no implementation of recommendations in respect of optometrists, solicitors or barristers. There were 29 recommendations concerning the latter group. In private health insurance a health insurance (amendment) Bill was promised but very little has been done on it so far. There has been no implementation of recommendations in respect of dentists.

That is not good enough. There is no point in having a competition authority that makes recommendations, publishes reports and engages in advocacy if the Government largely ignores those decisions. The Minister's predecessor made a policy announcement stating the Government would issue a reasoned response to recommendations of the Competition Authority. I call on the Minister to honour that and go back through all those reports, as far back as 1999, list all the recommendations and issue a reasoned response on each one.

He can indicate which will be implemented, how and when this will happen and the reasons others will not be implemented. It should be done retrospectively with all those reports as far back as 1999.

The new legislation should place a legal obligation so that all public and publicly-funded bodies - as opposed to Ministers - must issue a reasoned response to recommendations within a specific period of perhaps six or 12 months. This does not mean they must implement them but they will need to respond to them. That is key. The Government has been very keen in the past decade or 12 years to set up task forces, committees and inter-agency groups preparing reports and issuing recommendations but the Government never responds to them in a reasoned way. For example, it would never outline 20 recommendations, implement 12 and reject eight, while outlining how and why it would do so. That approach to Government is still not seen in Ireland but we need it. The Government should give comprehensive, reasoned responses to advocacy, reports and recommendations from public bodies of its creation.

We should also look at the possibility of lowering the threshold of proof. There has been some celebration of the fact that for the first time in Ireland we have had people convicted of breaking competition law, with one case bringing a suspended sentence. We should consider going down the civil route and having very large fines for such behaviour. The Competition Authority unfortunately often goes after the small guys rather than the big guys. If we are to go after them, deep pockets are required and we should be able to levy really expensive fines. The Competition Authority could become self-funding if it was in the position to levy the kinds of fines imposed by the European Union, which reach the millions of euro, rather than those amounting to thousands of euro.

We also need to enact some of the recommendations made by the Competition Authority in its submission to the review of the 2002 Act, particularly with regard to powers of search and seizure and information sharing with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection. That seems elementary. The protection of whistleblowers is very close to my heart. People either within companies or suppliers may be prepared to blow the whistle on anti-competitive practices and they should be protected if they do so. It is very important for this to be included in new legislation whenever it comes.

We will support this Bill but on Committee Stage we will propose some amendments. One will request Oireachtas scrutiny of the Minister's appointments. I will not labour the point as the House has heard my view and that of my party on the issue many times. I hope the Minister will support our amendment and not take the view that he can appoint anybody he likes to the Competition Authority without consulting the Oireachtas and asking for an opinion from its Members.

We will also put down an amendment relating to reasoned response, which I have outlined already. We will be putting down an amendment to allow the Competition Authority to grant a licence to the Government to negotiate with professional bodies such as the Irish Medical Organisation, the Irish Pharmaceutical Union and the Irish Dental Association, largely along the lines of the process in Australia, whereby the Government can go to the Competition Authority and request a licence to negotiate with these bodies in the public interest. When agreement is reached it would go to the Competition Authority for an opinion to ensure it would not be anti-competitive, and then the agreement can come into effect. We are not in favour of a blanket exemption for any trade association or business body from competition law. That would be a retrograde step.

On the question of vulnerable workers, such as freelance journalists, actors and musicians in casual employment, if the Government has a solution to this fraught issue now would be a good time to bring it forward. A commitment was made many years ago to deal with the issue and the Government should honour its commitments. I do not see why it cannot use Committee Stage of this legislation to bring forward a solution if it exists.

Nobody in this House believes freelance journalists, actors or musicians engaged in casual employment are a threat to the economy or competition. Any solution that the Government comes up with must be robust and should ensure that there are no knock-on complaints or demands from other sectoral interests which could potentially be a threat to competition if the door was opened with that option.

We will also seek an amendment to narrow the expertise field of appointees. Allowing the Minister to appoint anybody who is experienced in law, economics, public affairs, consumer affairs or business generally is a little broad; there are few people the Minister could not appoint as they would not fall into those categories. The stipulation could be a bit tighter and there could be a requirement to have experience of competition law, economics or consumer affairs. That would be a better option. We have been blessed to date in that although I am critical of many public bodies, the Competition Authority has capable and qualified people in key roles. That must be maintained and I do not see why it should not be enshrined in legislation. That would ensure the Minister and his successor would only appoint people of the highest calibre, who are not just aware of business and public affairs generally but are experts in the field of competition and consumer affairs.

We will support the Bill, although it is disappointing that it had to be brought forward. The issue could have been addressed either by holding competitions when the vacancies arose or by bringing forward the long-promised legislation to amend and improve the 2002 Act.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. The Labour Party is astounded that we have arrived at this impasse, and it illustrates - if this was required - the failure of the Government to ensure the Competition Authority had the appropriate membership level. The authority appears to have been carrying a vacancy in its membership since January 2009, which is close to a year and a half ago. One must ask where does the level of incompetence in this Government begin or end or who was asleep at the wheel on this important issue?

I would not be as great an advocate of unbridled or untrammelled competition as my colleague, Deputy Varadkar, and I have referred to the issue on numerous occasions in committee. The mad rush to liberalise the taxi industry, as referred to by Deputy Varadkar, illustrates the point. We have competition-driven regulation in that industry and while there was an obvious need to increase the number of taxis, the business is now falling asunder. People cannot pay their road tax or for the licence. Unbridled competition can leave many casualties in its path and a free-for-all based on an ideological imperative has left much devastation in its wake. I will refer to that later.

What amuses me about the Competition Authority is that very often it is the small business arena that is its focus, as Deputy Varadkar noted. I chair the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment and we have been examining the supplier-retailer relationship. The failure of the Competition Authority in this regard is notable, and it has used every excuse under the sun in the following up of important issues essential to the industry. "Hello money" under various guises has been demanded by large retailers from suppliers, and many of these suppliers operate in vulnerable areas. Many of the people involved were not in a position to come forward about this, some because they expressed fear.

This finding is contained in our recently issued interim report that has been sent to the Minister. The Competition Authority stood idly by while this went on. Had it been a small industry, the authority would have been in like a shot. Bringing competition to its nth degree, even in the professions leads to the yellow pack. Many barristers for instance take on cases and never leave a client unrepresented, which is never acknowledged in the various reports and recommendations emanating from those eminent bodies. If one knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, one will eventually reach a yellow pack situation. When ensuring there is representation, one must also guarantee its quality. I did not want to discuss this today, as I am a barrister and I do not want to get into that debate, but these are the types of activity that annoy me greatly. For these reasons, I do not give unqualified approval to everything the Competition Authority does. I would be less than honest if I entered the House and engaged in a hypocritical cant, namely, that the Competition Authority and everything it does are great. Often, the authority pursues lines with an ideological imperative, as illustrated by my colleague, Deputy Higgins.

Deputy Varadkar is slightly mixed up, as it was the Labour Party that introduced the Competition (Amendment) Bill 2007 to amend section 4. I was astounded when the Government rejected it. This Bill proposes to amend section 35 of the Competition Act 2002 to permit the appointment of three temporary members to the Competition Authority. It will enable the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation to appoint temporary members to fill current and upcoming vacancies, thereby ensuring that the membership exceeds the statutory minimum required to allow it to function properly. Obviously, this is correct if the validity of decisions made by the authority is never to be impugned. Therefore, we support the Bill in principle to ensure the authority is properly constituted, putting it in a position to carry out its important functions. We acknowledge that proper and appropriate, but not untrammelled or unbridled, competition will play an important role in ensuring that our country becomes competitive and will help us to deal with the current economic circumstances. We acknowledge that competition is important in this respect, but I emphasise that it must not be confetti to the wind where the consequences are allowed to fall wherever.

The number of members in the authority has fallen to three people, but was this not obvious to the Government? It was certainly obvious when Mr. Prasifka retired six weeks ago. Surely these matters were anticipated, as he did no retire suddenly. Surely he gave notice. Steps should have been taken promptly to deal with the situation and obviate the need to introduce legislation that only facilitates the appointment of whole-time members for a short period. The Minister envisages this to be six months, but he reserves the right in legislation to appoint people for a further six months. I understand the reason. For example, the Public Appointments Service, PAS, might not have made a final decision or people might need to give notice before leaving their current positions to take up the appointments. This is fair enough and I see no difficulty with it. Whole-time members will be appointed by the PAS, an independent process. It is important that the PAS is independent in making its appointments, an aspect fully and unequivocally supported by the Labour Party.

Mr. Declan Purcell has been appointed chairman of the authority, apparently on a temporary basis until a full-time chairperson can be appointed. I understand the Minister is working on this under the recruitment process to which I referred. I acknowledge Mr. Purcell's previous role and work as head of the Competition Authority's advocacy division. He has a long and distinguished career in the public service. I anticipate that he will adopt a reasonable and commonsense approach to issues within his remit and will work hard to ensure that competition will benefit consumers and businesses alike. I hope he will not adopt an ostrich-like position and will instead take cognisance of the surrounding circumstances.

In particular, I hope he will note the attempts by large retailers to expand rapidly, often in out-of-town centre developments, by seeking to have retail planning guidelines significantly altered to suit them, but all under the guise that the consumer would benefit. In other words, it is always about the price. However, this would be to the detriment of corner shops, shops in small town centres and rural shops. These may not be as competitive in their prices, but they give a service, are well located and are open at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. when someone needs a pint of milk, loaf of bread or something else that he or she has forgotten. These social and value issues are as important as matters of price, which often appear to be the driving force behind the Competition Authority's view, thus effectively allowing the massive retail complexes to act in a hoover-style mopping up of potential footfall and leading to the eventual closure of the small shop outlets to which I referred. Many of those outlets act as more than just shops. They act as service outlets. When they have disappeared from the Irish landscape, as occurred in England when numerous shops went to the wall, a significant part of the country's rural fabric will have been eliminated. Only large retail stores will be left standing, a vivid replication of the Darwinian theory of evolution whereby only the strong survive. Perhaps the very strong will be on their own.

Who will judge the Competition Authority then? It is the master of all it surveys. It has made these decisions, but who is policing them? I have heard this question asked in academic circles and, sometimes, legal circles. What kind of a society will we have left? These questions must be asked. While the authority is within its right to look for value for consumers and to ensure businesses comply with guidelines, regulations and so on, it must do more. It must consider the social implications of its decisions and of the rush to the headland wherein the only determinant is price. The loss of small shops and the subsequent loss of vital jobs in rural Ireland will be the inevitable result, the whirlwind of a pure and unadulterated competition policy. We must tread warily and acknowledge that other factors are at play.

In the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment's discussions with the former chairman, my approach to these important matters differed significantly from his. I hope the new chairman and the authority in general will recognise these as important issues that cannot be air-brushed out of existence in the interest of an otherwise mad rush to embrace unbridled competition. As Deputy Varadkar stated, competition is not a god. Sometimes, it is a signal or an objective, but it should not be the be all and end all. This is what worries me about some of the decisions taken by the authority.

The Competition Authority plays an important role as an independent agency that reviews and examines mergers and acquisitions and, by the adoption of the best international practice, scrutinises important areas. The High Court quashed a decision by the authority to block the Kerry Group-Breeo merger. I understand the matter is before the High Court on appeal, so I will say no more except to state that I have a view. It is important to point out that a number of the authority's decisions have raised eyebrows and did not find favour at a practical level. My colleague, Deputy Edward O'Keeffe, has articulated these concerns several times at committee level.

I turn to section 4 of the Competition Act 2002. A source of major disappointment to the Labour Party in respect of this Bill is the Government's failure to use it to amend section 4 of the Competition Act 2002, which has given rise to consequences that were unforeseen when the latter was passed. The Government has reneged on commitments it gave early in 2009 to amend this section of the 2002 Act. It is regrettable that the Government, on foot of its abject failure in this regard, has let many people down. I cannot lay the blame in this regard at the feet of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. I congratulate him on his new portfolio. He is a straight shooter and I look forward to engaging in constructive discussions with him. In my opinion, the Minister will accept amendments and will listen carefully to what Members have to say. He has good acumen in that regard.

Nowhere in the 2002 Act is there a clearer diversity of views than in the section to which I refer. That was the generally held opinion among those who were present in the Dáil when the legislation was passed. The suggestion that consumers are solely interested in price is an appalling distortion of the position that obtains. Deputy Higgins has been to the forefront in the context of seeking to have section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 amended. He prepared and published a Competition (Amendment) Bill in 2007, which clearly specified that section 4 of the 2002 Act is an impediment to established negotiation practices, including those protected under trade union legislation.

The Government voted down Deputy Higgins's Bill in 2007 and ignored the implications for actors, self-employed artists, pharmacists and others. Members will recall that at that point pharmacists were at loggerheads with the HSE because it had taken unilateral action and would not negotiate with the Irish Pharmacy Union, IPU. It was never envisaged that the 2002 Act would prevent negotiations with representative bodies in respect of members who supply services to citizens on behalf of the Government. What has happened in the interim is, therefore, incredible.

As I recall, the Competition Authority was prepared to go to court in respect of Equity, the actors' union, which is a member of SIPTU, to argue that it had no right to represent freelance actors. Four or five years ago, there were some 5,500 such actors. Everyone is aware that very few actors, freelance journalists or others like them are in full-time, permanent employment. However, these individuals are still entitled to representation. Labour, above all other political parties, would cherish that right and fight for it to be recognised as a fundamental human right.

As Deputy Higgins has stated in the past, the right to collective representation cannot be swept aside in the name of competition. We have consistently argued that the correct response to the position in which artists and others find themselves is to amend section 4 of the Competition Act 2002. This would vindicate the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act 1906, Trade Union Act 1941 and the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and ensure that those to whom I refer and similar groups can organise collectively to better their own terms and conditions of employment and service. Why did the Competition Authority insist that artists, freelance journalists, artists, musicians and others who, as Deputy Higgins has stated on numerous occasions, do not, as a result of the nature of their occupations, enjoy continuous employment? Why should these people be denied the right to be represented by trade unions? Was this view driven by an ideological imperative? How could artists, musicians and freelance journalists be classified as "undertakings"?

The Government rejected the Labour Party's 2007 to the Competition Act 2002. As part of Towards 2016, however, it announced that following public consultation - surely it could have acknowledged that my party had advised it of the difficulties in this regard a year prior to the publication of Towards 2016 - it had "as part of its review of the operation and implementation of the Competition Act, 2002 ... examined the interaction between that legislation and provisions of the Industrial Relations Acts as regards the issue of collective bargaining for certain vulnerable workers". It is also stated in Towards 2016 that:

The Government is committed to introducing amending legislation in 2009 to exclude voice-over actors, freelance journalists and session musicians, being categories of workers formerly or currently covered by collective agreements, when engaging in collective bargaining, from the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, taking into account, inter alia, that there would be negligible negative impacts on the economy or on the level of competition, and having regard to the specific attributes and nature of the work involved subject to consistency with EU competition rules.

It is a matter of great regret, to those in the trade union and everyone else, that the Government has to date failed to bring forward the relevant legislation.

I acknowledge the Minister's statement to the effect that he intends to bring forward a comprehensive Bill. If the amalgamation of the National Consumer Agency and the Competition Authority had taken place, there would be no need for such a Bill. We were promised that said amalgamation would take place in 2009, again over one year ago. In his speech on Budget 2009, the Minister for Finance indicated that this amalgamation would form part of the rationalisation process. As someone who advocates caution above rushing headlong into rationalisations, amalgamations, etc., I am of the view that it is necessary to consider the consequences of one's actions.

We all know what happens when people make statements, off the top of their heads, as did the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, in respect of decentralisation in one of his budget speeches. We have witnessed the ramifications of this decision in that regard. I would support decentralisation but we all saw when happened when the former Minister made an impulsive statement. There were implications in respect of expenditure, etc., as a result of what happened on that occasion. People in Mullingar are extremely disappointed that the long-promised decentralisation to their town has still not occurred. Planning permission and land have been secured but a building has not been constructed. Some 300 people are awaiting decentralisation to Mullingar.

We want to ensure that initiatives such as decentralisation are dealt with properly, that competition law will be updated and that the new competition body will be created. In that context, the Labour Party will be bringing forward amendments on Committee Stage in order to ensure that section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 will be amended in a way that will reflect the intention of the Legislature when the Act was originally passed. We are seeking to ensure that people will have a right to collective representation and collective bargaining rights and to be represented by a trade union, whether it be Equity, as part of SIPTU, the IPU, the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO, the Irish Dental Association, IDA, the National Union of Journalists, NUJ, etc. Rights such as those to which I refer are fundamental in nature and the Labour Party believes them to be extremely important.

My party is giving careful consideration to the code of practice relating to those who carry out business in the grocery sector and wants to ensure the protection and promotion of fair trade between retailers and suppliers. Those we have met have indicated that if action is not taken now, there will be few suppliers because most of them will have been wiped out. I refer, in particular, to those involved in the agriculture industry in this regard. How can farmers be expected to continue production when supermarkets, etc., are selling cabbages at two for the price of one? Farmers will eventually be wiped out because it is uneconomic to operate at the level to which I refer. It is important, therefore, that we should examine this matter in detail.

The Labour Party proposes that a statutory code should be introduced and that an ombudsman be appointed to supervise this. The authorities in Great Britain have made progress in this regard. The relevant committee has, following much detailed consideration, put forward suggestions in this regard. People may state this is in the interests of consumers and that a form of protectionism is being proposed but it is no such thing. Eventually, the suppliers of this country will be wiped out and there will be more unemployment. Ultimately, Members are all consumers and shoppers and many have sons, daughters, nieces and nephews who are employed by those suppliers. Were they to be wiped out, a greater ream of unemployment will be created and we will have nothing to call our own. We will possess a large import industry to bring goods into this country.

Therefore, I look forward to that Bill. I hope the joint committee will have produced a comprehensive report that probably will be of assistance to the Minister. While it probably would mean a further delay of a few weeks to the Bill, I hope the joint committee's full report will be available by June. It would make a contribution to the Minister's assessment of what may be required in this context. I note the majority of the joint committee's membership also are members of the Minister's own party and undoubtedly will outline at parliamentary party meetings what the joint committee intends to achieve in that regard. The Labour Party supports the Bill in principle but will table one or two amendments to reflect some of the views I have echoed in this Chamber on its behalf today.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy English has 20 minutes.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I doubt whether I will need the entire 20 minutes but I will take a few minutes to make some comments. While the Bill is important, it is not massive. I will make a few comments on both the Competition Authority and on the Bill.

First, I find it strange that the Minister was obliged to introduce a Bill to do what is proposed but I understand he must do so to make a temporary appointment. The process of appointing people appears to be very slow but such a process must be gone through. Perhaps in future, for those authorities that must have a certain number of members, a panel of substitutes could be put in place. Substitutes always are available for any bodies on which Members serve who automatically can take up a vacancy. My suggestion for the future is that when interviews take place, this might be a useful way to give everyone a positive response at the interview stage and of having them on the board anyway.

This Bill proves that when it must, the Government is able to introduce a law very quickly. I make this point because Members often call for badly-needed legislation but are told it would take months or years. Alternatively, important Bills hang around in the House and it is ridiculous that some Bills have been before Dáil Éireann for nearly as long as me. This proves the point that when the Government so wishes, it can get it together and a Bill can be passed through the Houses.

This Bill does not do much apart from addressing a temporary situation but it provides me with the opportunity to speak about the Competition Authority. I acknowledge the Minister is bringing forward new legislation shortly to merge the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency, to make changes and so on. However, members of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment and other committees have had a few discussions with the previous chairman of the Competition Authority in recent years. Members debated its work and went through what it does. It is fairly apparent that the authority needs more powers and new laws. While the representatives of such bodies who appear before a joint committee will never tell Opposition Members the real story, I hope they approach the Minister behind the scenes and apprise him or her of their needs.

It was quite clear to me, as I listened to the contributions and went through the reports of the Competition Authority, that it needs greater powers to move through the court system much faster. There is not much point in having a Competition Authority if, for example, in the case of one of the car cartels it investigated, the case went on for years. However, those involved went unpunished in the meantime and nothing changed. Alternatively, if the Competition Authority detects a practice that is wrong, it is unable to stop it dead in its tracks but must go through the legal system to do so, like anyone else, which can take a number of years. While the publicity surrounding an investigation might get the message out to the public, not everyone would be aware of it. Consequently, I understand that such bad practice can continue while waiting for the authority to prove its case. I accept there must be due process and so on but the best way to solve this issue is to make it a fast process and to make such decisions. If someone is acting illegally or uncompetitively or at an advantage to someone else, it should be dealt with quickly. The only way in which this can be achieved is by giving further powers to the Competition Authority. While it may be through the provision of more money or staff, it also should be given quicker access through the court system or a special court system should be established. This is not a lecture but is merely my point of view as developed from listening to contributions to joint committee meetings. Reading between the lines, something is holding the authority back from doing an excellent job. I acknowledge it does quite a lot of good work but the authority needs a little more to be perceived as a threat.

The majority of businesses in Ireland operate properly, do their best and so on and try to make profits in a tough environment facing tough costs and so on. However there always are a few rogues who must be nailed there and then because otherwise the practice spreads and one encounters a few more such operators in the same business. It is highly unfair to a business that does everything by the book and in a law-abiding fashion to be operating next door to someone who is breaking the law. The person who breaks the law will gain in the short term, which is unfair to a proper business that is providing good employment and so on. Consequently, there is a duty on the Government, through all its agencies, to move as fast as possible.

Second, I refer to the proposal to merge the National Consumer Agency with the Competition Authority. I have a problem with the former and the work it did or did not do in recent years. I believe it was a case of it closing the gate after the horse had bolted. When recessionary times hit, it highlighted that massive price differentials between those that obtained in the Republic and across the Border. Moreover, it encouraged people to cross the Border. I also should note that I had problems with the actions of the then Minister, Deputy Coughlan. As the present Minister is new, I will not blame him for that just yet. However, there was a role for the agency to try to correct the movement across the Border of those who thought they would get a better deal because such deals were nearly gone. While price comparisons had been done, they were out of date and when retailers in the South reduced their prices, the National Consumer Agency and the Government were very slow to correct the information or to explain to people that the position in the South had improved and that they should consider spending their money here. The hysteria still obtained and the message still was that one should go to the North to spend one's money. Moreover, this still is happening, which is costing jobs in the South, as well as a loss of revenue to people.

My understanding, from the extensive investigations by the aforementioned joint committee, is that Irish people do not mind paying a little extra for certain items because they know this is a small island. They acknowledge the country's population, at only 4 million people, is not massive and is not comparable to that of England, for example. Consequently, while there will be a difference in prices, they will not accept being taken for a ride by anyone. A massive price difference means that people will travel but if only a small difference obtains, people understand that for jobs and so on, it is worth spending their money down here. It is the Government's role, through all its agencies, to keep that message current and to encourage people to do this. Perhaps I am being harsh in this regard but I believe that although the National Consumer Agency did much in the first instance to raise the issue, it did not do anything subsequently to clarify that the position had changed. Although the great deals that people may think are to be had in the North no longer exist, it is only when they go there that they realise this.

Second, I hope this will be remedied in the forthcoming changes, but the agency did not do anything regarding any of the costs to business. All such costs to business are passed on to the consumer and are added to the price. While I acknowledge that many retailers made profits above what was appropriate in comparison with other countries, there still are high costs associated with doing business in the Republic. Moreover, the majority of costs that are too high in Ireland are in some way connected to the Government. I am not being partisan in this regard and am not blaming any particular political party but simply am stating the reality. For example, Ireland's insurance costs are among the highest and the same is true in respect of banking charges, telecommunications, energy, council rates and so on. As for contribution levies, if one wishes to start a business, one is obliged to pay out tens of thousands to a council simply to open the business. Talk about restrictive practices.

All these costs went unchecked, with the exception of the efforts of a few Members on this side of the House who tried to raise the issue periodically. Apart from that, no agency considered such issues and this is what the National Consumer Agency should have been doing. It should not simply have been examining other costs and it should not have been afraid to consider Government-related charges as well. Regulated businesses operated on behalf of the Government, such as energy and so on, increased costs for business that were passed on to the consumer yet the National Consumer Agency never touched on them or conducted a comparison on them at all. The reason for this is obvious but this should change. If it is going to be truly independent, it should act independently and where prices are too high, it should say so, regardless of who causes or is responsible for that price in the first place. Prices must be brought down if Ireland is to be more competitive in the future and is to be able to compete with other countries in exporting, for jobs and so on. This must be done because otherwise we will suffer badly. One can have all the cutbacks one wishes and all the bord snips one likes and all the bailouts one wishes for but unless our export markets are increased, Ireland will not be able to emerge from the problems it faces. The only way we can do this is to trade our way out of it.

I am afraid that for ten or 15 years, buying and selling houses from and to one another was not good for the country. While it might have enriched individuals, it did not enrich the country. It was a false pretence and we suffered during those years. I know the Minister will tell me that exports are rising. While this is the case, they should be doing much better and ten or 15 really important years of good times were lost, during which time this country could have exported a great deal more and could have done a lot better to be in a better position. In the future, if we get our costs right, then we will have jobs. When the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency merge, they will have a role in this regard and I hope the Minister will take this on board.

As for making appointments, be they permanent or temporary, my party and I have a major problem in this regard. I am sure that my colleague, Deputy Varadkar, has dealt with this matter already. What is wrong with bringing before the joint committee people the Minister would recommend for positions whom he believes have the necessary qualifications, even if they are quite wide-ranging, be it in law, economics, public administration, consumer affairs or business generally? That range of qualifications covers nearly everybody. Those people should appear before the joint committee and present their case. They could explain why they are suitable for the job, show us their CV and we could ask them questions. This should be done even if the Minister does not give the joint committee the power to make the final decision, which I accept is probably the Minister's decision. I would like if that were changed but that is position. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from allowing those people to be brought before the joint committee to be questioned - not to be interrogated, made feel bad or to investigate their personal life, but to deal with their qualifications for the job, be that the position of chairperson or member of a board. These are public appointments and they should be subject to public scrutiny. This has to be done by TDs in this House and such a change alone would make this House more relevant. People to whom we listen, our constituents and ourselves look with envy at other countries that have this procedure and do this properly.

The Minister is a practical man and I am sure he agrees with me on this. I hope he will use his office to ensure this is done. If he even achieved that in his few years in office, although he might be only there for a short term before the next general election - he would make an impact. That is one proposal he could bring to the Cabinet table. It would be an important change, especially in Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. We did a critique of how that Department has worked based on the Government's analysis of it on foot of a report, the name of which escapes me, which was done for the Department of Finance. It set out a spot analysis of the Department, all the practices that should be changed and so on. I am not convinced that we made all those changes, although some progress has been made on them, but I questioned the previous Minister on whether enough has been done. I expect the new Minister to drive forward that policy. Many of the problems could be solved by bringing the people he proposes to appoint to the various agencies, of which there are quite a number under his remit, before the joint committee to enable us to have a good conversation with them to ascertain their thinking, note their CVs and so on. I hope that will happen in the future. As I said, the Minister could have a panel of people lined up to take up these jobs rather than having to waste time. I have dealt with the question of the National Consumer Agency.

On the role of the Competition Authority in making decisions, Deputy Penrose referred to the discussions being held on the planning laws governing the square footage for supermarkets and the restrictions that apply in that respect, which are in place for a reason. In most cases they are beneficial, protect town centres and encourage existing businesses to remain in town centres. However, there is room for everybody to have a say and for the large retailers to be located on the outskirts of towns. Consumers love the idea of having a big shopping centre with a large car park where they can do their shopping. They love that idea because it is convenient but it is convenient because we have failed town centres. There is a duty on Government, though all the Departments, to correct this, be it in terms of parking or traffic management, and to make it easier for people to shop in town centres and to rebuild town centres. Then there would be fair play and consumers would be happy to shop in either place. If we allow the huge supermarkets to become even bigger, they will hoover up all the business, of that there is no doubt. That has happened throughout the world. They will hoover up businesses and draw customers to shop in one place, which will result in job losses and business closures in town centres and elsewhere.

The Competition Authority has a very strong position on that, namely, that it could not restrict the size of such premises and it advocated increasing the size laid down. I know where it is coming from on that, which is with a view to ensuring there is competition. However, the job of the Minister and the Government is to get a balance in terms of what is right across the board for the consumer in the long run. Sometimes the Competition Authority makes a decision that will benefit the consumer for perhaps the next few years but in the long run if shops close and there is less choice the consumer will lose out, of that there is no doubt and, furthermore, jobs will be lost in the meantime. I hope the Minister will bring a balanced approach to this matter. I hope he and other Ministers, including the Minister, Deputy Gormley, who has a role in this area will listen to such a balanced approach.

The Minister said that he intends to implement a code of practice for transacting business in the grocery goods sector. I know it is intended to introduce a voluntary code first, which has been discussed, but I have not seen any conclusive evidence to prove that will work. The Minister should consider putting this on a legal footing now rather than wasting time introducing the code on a voluntary basis, seeing how that operates, having a review on it and then deciding two years down the line to put it on a proper legal footing to protect suppliers and producers of goods. That is what we need now. If we let this drag on and we introduce a voluntary code which does not work in practice, jobs will be lost and people will be out of business. It is important this be put on a legal footing. As the Chairman of the joint committee said, considerable work has been done on this. We have gathered a good deal of information and research and I am sure all the agencies under the Minister's remit have that same information. He has some excellent people in the Enterprise Ireland and in other sections who work with those in the food sector, who talk to them on a daily basis, help them with their business plans and make money available to them. They know what is happening in the sector and that there is bad practice there. We have to do something about it. It would be wrong to let this drag on and we would regret the decisions to so do.

There are bullies in the retail sector. This Government and country should not be bullied by anybody, even if it is done under a cover up that such practice is beneficial to the consumer. It is not in the long run and it is not good for this country if jobs and good products are lost as a result. Suddenly consumers will be left with very little choice but to buy imported goods. That is what will happen if we do not take action. I do not mean to be dramatic about this, but that is a fact because we know what is happening in other places. That is part of what we are talking about here. I hope the Minister will bring the common sense approach to this Department that he brought to his previous Department and listen to our views on this matter.

The Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment does a great deal of excellent work, its members put in many hours and its membership is cross-party. I do not believe there was ever a vote at any of its meetings. Good research has been done in this area. The Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, was a member of that committee and served well on it. It has gathered good information and I ask the Minister to put it to use. He should not leave those reports lying on top shelves gathering dust because that makes a mess and a mockery of what we do in this House. The Minister should use the good information available and make quick decisions based on it. We have suffered as a result of inaction during the past few years when it comes to this portfolio and that is the reason there has been an increase in job losses. We must make some quick decisions and move swiftly.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like my colleagues, I do not have a difficulty with the Bill. Having served in this House for a long time, no more than the Minister, I want to ask him why all this was not foreseen. I saw these people at committee meetings over the years and surely there must have been some indication that they were going to leave. I appreciate that people come and go all the time, but in this respect there must be a proper mechanism in place. I am sure this will not be the biggest problem that will beset the Minister in his office. Many people will ask why we are wasting the time of the Dáil or what is the necessity for having to do this. I appreciate that, legally, the Minister had to do this, but at a time when 425,000 people are unemployed I cannot understand why it was not possible to get people to take on those jobs. I hope that this will not happen again.

I recall on number of occasions being at committee meetings, such as the committee to which Deputy English referred, at which officials of the Competition Authority were present. I always thought that its objectives were right and I understood from where it was coming in what it did. This matter was mentioned by a number of Deputies. There have been several legal requirements in the way of its acting. I recall at the time of the home heating oil saga, it successfully prosecuted a number of home heating oil suppliers that were obviously acting in concert in terms of the prices being charged. That case was successfully brought through the courts. I got the impression on several occasions since then, and I will refer to a few cases, that had the Competition Authority more teeth, staff and energy it could have done and should have done several other things during the past few years. That is the reason the Fine Gael proposal that the Competition Authority should be merged with the National Consumer Agency into a new Irish fair trading authority would make a great deal of sense. It is possible that the Minister will also realise the necessity for doing that when he is in the Department for a little while and he might even go so far as calling this proposal his Bill. That is what happens in politics, but one way or the other if it is good for Ireland, that will be okay.

When we talk about competition, one of the first people who comes to mind is Eddie Hobbs, who began the campaign on competition and rip-off Ireland. We in Fine Gael ran a website, www.ripoff.ie, which was extraordinarily successful, received thousands of hits and touched a pulse with most people. People get the feeling much of the time that they are being ripped off but they do not know why or how. All of this gave a new awareness that this happens to individuals a thousand times in a year. For some strange reason, a product is a certain price here and a different price 50 miles down the road.

I come from a farming background. Many years ago, I got myself into a position where I was a very minor player in the Goodman inquiry when I said I thought the meat factories were in concert with each other. While I genuinely believed it at the time, once the report came out, there was not much about the meat factories being in concert with anyone, although that is another story which we will not open up today.

It is a fact that there is a real lack of competition, although when competition is overly severe, this can sometimes have major negative effects, an issue raised by Deputy English. I have seen several recommendations from the Competition Authority over the years. It appears it never laid a hand or a glove on any of the Government Departments and, for some strange reason, simply steered clear of them. Was it that it knew the Minister too well or that it did not want to take the flak from the Government? I do not know. However, there was no area where service prices increased more than in the areas serviced by either the Departments or local government.

Take refuse charges, for example, which are a policy to print money. Some made huge amounts of money out of landfill sites and there did not seem to be any controls. The Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, knows this problem as well as I do, given it is central to his new role. Take the cost of electricity and gas over the years. We know the cost has dropped significantly over the years but it appears it will be on the way up again.

I am delighted the Minister is present. As I said some weeks ago, there is one aspect of pricing I cannot understand. Some 18 months or two years ago, the price of crude oil spiked at $140 a barrel and the talk throughout the country concerned whether supplies would run out when prices here reached €1.35 to €1.40 a litre. I filled my car with diesel at a service station in recent days at €1.30 a litre and I am told this price will continue to increase. However, when I checked the price of crude oil last week, it was $82 a barrel, which is a long way from $140 a barrel, yet the price spike is still increasing.

The Minister or another member of Government should tell the House who is ripping us off in this regard. I assume it is a huge international financial matter but, whoever is doing it, can a national Government do anything about it? We talk about the cost of living but we cannot ask commuters to pay that sort of price, particularly as I am told it is likely to increase by 10% or 15% in the next four or five months. It is against this background that someone needs to start asking very serious questions. At one time, we used to say it was the oil producers of OPEC which screwed us, saying "We own the oil, we are pumping it out and we will give it to you at our price". This is no longer the case. Oil is almost half the price it was but we are still paying more for it, which is a problem. While I do not know what authority should solve it, somebody would want to explain it.

I wish to raise a hobby horse of mine, namely, the grocery business. It is very important that we have a wide variety of products and fine establishments and supermarkets. On the other hand, it is extremely important that we balance that with the display of the best of Irish farm products. The Minister will hear much about the following issue in his current role. I have not the slightest doubt there is no shortage of hello money being sought and given in regard to the display of products in supermarkets. It is like a fiddler's elbow, and they are all at it. To what extent they are at it, I do not know, but it is putting remarkable pressure on producers.

This is a con for consumers. What the retailers are suggesting is that if they tighten their grip and lower the price of the product coming onto the shelf, this has to be good for the consumer who is buying the product. If people were not that long out, they might believe that. However, if one thinks about it, what will happen, as Deputy Penrose noted, is that two heads of cabbage will not grow on the one stalk because they must have room. If we continue down this line, the primary producer will get pushed out.

While this is more relevant to the overall issue than to the Bill, I point out that we spend great amounts of money through the Oireachtas to ensure people farm properly and that the best possible products are made available by Irish farmers. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows what I am talking about. If great pressure is put on the producers, they cannot make a profit on what they sell. I am a suckler cow farmer. If I sell my weanlings every year and get €100 less than the cost of producing them, I cannot stay in business even though I am farming to the best possible standard - it is as simple as that. This cannot continue for much longer.

Take the situation of those tillage farmers producing wheat for bread, who will be steamrolled out of business. If that happens, we can of course buy in wheat from wheat-producing areas of the world but it will be bought at their price. There will be years when it is cheaper but, believe me, there will be years when it is much dearer and of much inferior quality. That is the kind of conundrum which faces the Minister, and it is not an easy one to answer. I have no doubt it is an issue to which he will want to return. The Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency have a huge say in what will happen in the future in this regard.

The situation is serious. The Minister has talked of a voluntary code of practice. While I am not an expert on the matter, I understand this was tried in England with very poor results. If the Minister believes a voluntary code of practice would work, I cannot understand why he does not introduce it on a statutory basis. At the end of the day, there are competing national demands. There are the consumers on one side and the producers on the other, with the profiteers in the middle. It is a fact that in recent years, given the recession, the single industry that seems to have made the most money, other than the builders and developers who are now with NAMA, is the retail industry. People have to eat no matter what income they have. Against that background, a huge issue arises. The Minister should take the bull by the horns and introduce a code of practice which will be implementable. The introduction of a voluntary code, given the current atmosphere, will not work.

I wish to refer to one other issue before concluding. The issue of planning permission in terms of the area granted or not to major retailers in country towns and cities has been kicked around a great deal. During the past year or so, a major retailer opened a fine premises in Ballinasloe, County Galway, which is in my constituency. It appears to be working well. However, we must ensure we do not pull the heart or lifeblood out of local towns, some of which are big towns. These developments are opening up on the fringes of towns and are pulling business from the centre of our towns, leaving us with nothing but shabby, badly run towns. Without footfall in the centre of any town, the heart dies and we all know what happens then.

We can have the competition that housewives and consumers need. However, at the end of the day we must ensure these developments are of a size and model that does not ruin our towns and cities. Fine Gael has no difficulty with this Bill which provides us with an opportunity to put on record our thoughts on the various agencies covered therein. It is hoped that regardless of what happens to the staff in the future it will not be necessary to again introduce a Bill of this type.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is an emergency legislative measure to allow the Competition Authority to function with the required number of members. As stated, it will amend section 35 of the Competition Act 2002 to allow for the appointment of temporary members to the Competition Authority. I believe it is necessary we avoid legal challenges to its decisions. These measures will remain in place until such time as all current vacant positions are filled. The appointment by the Minister of a temporary chairperson prior to the debate on this Bill is an example of the Government's reliance on retrospective legislation. Was it necessary to put the cart before the horse, which is what the Minister did? The Minister made the announcement in respect of that appointment only seven days ago. Could that appointment not have waited until after this debate?

The question that must be asked in the context of this legislation is why there are a number of vacancies in the authority. Is the loss of members due to natural wastage or is there another reason which is being kept under wraps by Government? I would like the Minister to respond to that question this evening. There may be a common cause to a number of people leaving an organisation at the same time. If so, we need to know this.

A number of authority members are due to leave to take up new positions and others have reached retirement age, which is relevant in all areas except politics where often people are permitted to remain on forever. There is in place legislation which states that people must retire at a certain age. I am aware that a number of managers and directors of services in my own county retired having reached the age limit set down in this regard. The legislation dealing with ageism allows people to continue in employment for additional years.

As a result of vacancies, the authority will soon be unable to meet its statutory requirements of having in place a chairman and a minimum of two full-time members. While it is impossible to make provision for an unexpected resignation surely it is possible, even for this Government, to predict a retirement. The Government has informed us it would take too long to organise a public appointments competition and to find people of the necessary calibre required to fill the vacancies in the Competition Authority. However, it is not good enough that this situation, which now requires emergency legislation, was allowed to develop in the first instance. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that full-time members are available to such authorities. This is an indication of just how paralysed and out of touch this Government has been for the past number of years. What we need in this country is a general election and a clear-out of tired, jaded Ministers. There is much public anger in this regard. The bottom line for many people is to see this Fianna Fáil-led Government go out of office. It has been in situ for 20 of the past 22 years and nothing appears to be going right for it because it is not tuned into what it should be doing. This Government is a big disappointment to the nation. There was much hullabaloo and spin when Deputy Bertie Ahern took over the Fianna Fáil Party. The spin continues in this Government.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy must speak to the Bill.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will but the truth is important.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Relevance is important.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The truth must be told. The people of this country have been let down by this Government. There is a lot of anger out there. The Acting Chairman, like many of his colleagues, does not like to hear the truth.

There is currently an industrial dispute taking place in the public service resulting in parliamentary questions from parliamentarians not being answered. This is causing severe hardship to the sick and elderly of our communities. I would like to see this issue addressed. It is important we get or take opportunities to address these issues in this House. Ministers do not appear to be tuned in.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will have ample opportunity to address these issues in another way. I must remind him that his comments must be relevant to the Competition Authority Amendment Bill 2010.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have raised these issues by way of Standing Order 32 and on the Adjournment but they have not been accepted for discussion perhaps because they will embarrass the Government. We all know of the shady deals of Fianna Fáil in government with personnel from the Galway tent. There has been a huge abuse of power. It is important to put on the record that there was a great deal of abuse of power and cronyism in the system and that that cronyism remains. Let us make no mistake about that.

The Bill proposes to allow the Minister to directly appoint temporary members to the Competition Authority for a limited period of six months with the option to extend this for a further six months. With a Government foot in the door, it is hard to believe in the independence of this authority. I support the Bill because there is no other option. However, I condemn the negligence of the Minister and Government which has led to the need for this legislation. This lack of foresight must be linked to the Government's total failure to properly regulate competition, which is the driving force of any sound economy. The work of the Competition Authority is particularly necessary during this time of economic recession. Healthy competition is good for Irish consumers and keeps down prices. To have a situation where the authority cannot function due to a lack of requisite members is an indictment of the Government. How can we be expected to climb out of recession with a Government that fails to give the necessary priority to competition regulation?

I did not get a chance to congratulate the new Minister on his appointment to this portfolio. I hope he does better than his predecessor because she was a disaster and her failure to have a hands-on approach to the issue of job creation has led the country to a position where 450,000 people are unemployed. My constituency of Longford-Westmeath has more than 15,000 unemployed people at present. This is a dreadful reflection and indictment not alone on and of the Government but also on the two Government Deputies in the constituency, Deputies Peter Kelly and Mary O'Rourke. They have to take some responsibility for the huge number of unemployed people in the constituency. Those numbers had never before been reached during the lifetime of democracy in this country.

What has happened is a scandal. Longford has not had a new industry for 20 years. There was too much interference five, six or seven years ago when the national spatial strategy was announced. There was political interference by none other than the then Minister for Finance, now Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen. He developed the idea of having three cities in the midlands, leaving towns such as Longford and Portlaoise on the hind tit. They were left out of the equation entirely and this was wrong. What should have happened in the national spatial strategy was that one centre - Athlone - should have been developed in the midlands and all of the other towns in the region should have been feeder towns to it. That would have been proper planning for the midlands. However, it did not happen because of cronyism and political interference by the Government.

What has the Competition Authority done for small companies and the economic well-being of rural towns? In my town of Longford, large companies have set up in the town but then, for cost-cutting reasons, have moved to the outskirts. This does untold damage to the small companies that survive on the back of such large organisations. The economic heart is torn out of the town and the well-being of its business community is destroyed. I listened with interest to what Deputy Connaughton had to say on this issue. It is important that we, as a society, preserve small local shops while at the same time retain competition in the system for the sake of the consumer.

In the current economic situation, it is more important than ever that an organisation such as the Competition Authority should ensure that the breadth of its operations extend to the protection of hard-pressed small companies struggling for survival. This is happening in towns throughout the country, particularly in the midlands. The extension of town centre shopping malls has been a mixed blessing for rural communities. All is well when the flagship store is in place but its withdrawal is the death knell of rural communities and economies.

I am not sure what is the answer to this situation. However, it is an area of which I feel that the Competition Authority should be fully aware and it should be prepared to fight for the survival of small companies, which can still be the bedrock of rural economies. It is important that we do not lose sight of the special status of small shopkeepers and their particular place in the market. Real competition can take place only where there is an ever-increasing number of players in the market rather than the market being concentrated in the hands of a few high-profile players, many of whom in recent years had serious Fianna Fáil connections.

Consideration must be given to how predatory pricing, loss leading and the abuse of credit terms can be addressed. This is important. The ever-increasing demand for "hello" money is extremely damaging. Abusive practices have been in place and they impact adversely on suppliers, smaller competitors and consumers. We must ensure that wholesale discounts are passed on to the consumer, and that local shopping facilities are safeguarded for the benefit of the most marginalised in our society, who would be first to suffer from the loss of the small retailer. This is realistically the bottom line and the protection of both the small trader and the consumer must be ensured.

It is important that the Competition Authority remain as a strong and independent advocate of competition policy and law in Ireland. It needs to attract experienced high-calibre members to ensure that it also maintains its reputation internationally. This independence must not be challenged by the fact that a Minister is now in a position to directly appoint members to the authority, even if it is on a temporary basis.

There is a very strong feeling that Fianna Fáil Ministers cannot be trusted. This is regrettable and Fianna Fáil itself has led the general public to believe this. People are completely disillusioned. Fianna Fáil cannot be trusted in any area of the economy at present because of the amount of corruption that has been in the system in recent years and which continues. Most people in Irish society, including me, believe the only way to clear the air is to have a general election and the sooner, the better. If the Taoiseach is not prepared to go to the park and bring about a general election then the President should intervene and tell him the game is up and in the name of God to get out before the country is completely ruined by this Fianna Fáil-led Government.

While supporting the Bill, Fine Gael will seek the approval of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for any new appointments in the interests of improving transparency and to promote the political independence of the authority, which has been dented by the intervention of the Minister in these temporary appointments. This is a good opportunity for the Government to review the operation of the Competition Authority. Unfortunately when the Bill is passed, anyone other than the Government will be kept out of the process. Government appointees, no matter how qualified, raise the spectre of Government control. While supporting the Bill, I have no doubt that my colleague sitting in front of me, Deputy Leo Varadkar, will table a number of amendments.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all Deputies who contributed to the debate on the Bill, particularly those who spoke to its content. I remind them that the Bill is very focused and aims to deal with a limited number of issues that need immediate attention. A number of very interesting points were made. I will respond to some of them and study and give serious consideration to others in the context of other legislation under preparation.

In referring Deputy Varadkar to the follow-up to recommendations made in the Competition Authority report, I stress that these are recommendations only. The Government gave a commitment to publish a whole-of-government response to the recommendations contained in the Competition Authority reports, as set out in the Framework for Sustainable Economic Renewal document which builds on Ireland's smart economy. On 10 April, the Government issued a statement in which it noted the progress being made in this regard. I remind the Deputy of the contents of the statement. It noted that 40% of Competition Authority recommendations made between 2000 and 2009 have been implemented and a further 9% were being progressed. It is important to recall the important issues that have been addressed.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the position of the other 51% of recommendations?

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I stated, 40% of recommendations have been implemented, while a further 9% are being progressed.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In that case, it appears 51% of them have been rejected or does it take nine years for the Government to take a decision?

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Other issues are being considered. The Deputy must understand that these are recommendations and not every recommendation emanating from an authority will be implemented.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does it take nine years for a Government decision?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

Batt O'Keeffe (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To show the serious intent of the Government, we will give an outline of an overall response to the recommendations issued by the Competition Authority on a six monthly basis.

On the Towards 2016 commitment on certain classes of vulnerable workers, namely, voice-over actors, freelance journalists and session musicians, an issue raised by Deputies Varadkar, Penrose and English, this issue arose in respect of an exemption from competition law and is being considered in the context of developing the consumer and competition Bill which will be published later in the year.

Deputy Varadkar referred to Oireachtas scrutiny for temporary, whole-time members appointed under this legislation. The Bill does not foresee such scrutiny. To ensure persons appointed are suitable for the positions, appointees to these temporary positions must, in the opinion of the Minister, possess sufficient expertise in or experience of one or more of the following areas, namely, law, economics, public administration, consumer affairs or business generally.

On the level of fines, under the 2002 Act the courts may impose a fine in respect of hard core competition offences of up to €4 million or 10% of turnover. They may also impose a term of imprisonment of up to five years.

The vacancy from January 2009 was not filled in light of the announcement that the National Consumer Agency and Competition Authority were to be merged. The authority was statutorily properly constituted, even with the vacancy. An issue arose when the chairman resigned, at which point we appointed a temporary chairman.

Deputies Penrose and Connaughton raised issues regarding a code of conduct for the grocery goods sector. As Deputies will be aware, the renewed programme for Government includes a specific commitment to implement a code of practice for doing business in the grocery goods sector to develop a fair trading relationship between retailers and their suppliers. It also makes a commitment to review the progress of the code and, if necessary, introduce a mandatory code. My predecessor, the Tánaiste, Deputy Mary Coughlan, appointed Mr. David Byrne SC in late March to act as a facilitator in the development of a code. Regrettably, Mr. Byrne notified me last week that he was not in a position to continue to act as a facilitator. I am in the process of identifying a replacement appointment.

The forthcoming consumer and competition Bill will contain enabling provisions allowing for the establishment of a statutory code. I hope the process of establishing a voluntary code will enable it to be used as a basis for any statutory code. The Government is strongly committed to ensuring Ireland continues to have vibrant agri-food and retail sectors, particularly given the importance of these sectors to the national economy. The Government, therefore, considers it important that there is a balance in the relationship between the various players in the grocery goods sector. The introduction of a code of practice, as provided for in the programme for Government, is intended to achieve such a balance, taking into account the interests of all the stakeholders in the grocery goods sector, including those of consumers, and the need to ensure there is no impediment to passing on lower prices to consumers.

The review of the Competition Act 2002 involved an in-depth public consultation process which was undertaken in 2007 and 2008. Many submissions were received, including some which raised a wide range of complex, specific legal issues. These have been analysed and proposals for amendments will be included in the forthcoming Bill.

Deputy Penrose referred to demands for what is known as "hello money" from suppliers. This practice is prohibited under competition law. No prosecutions have occurred owing to the unwillingness of parties to give evidence in court in this matter.

The retail planning guidelines are being reviewed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government whose Department is engaging with the Competition Authority on the issue.

Again, I thank Deputies who contributed to this useful and informative debate. I look forward to constructive engagement on the details of the proposals on Committee Stage.