Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I am a believer in competition and have been all my life. In general the Minister has got the balance right in this and it is not easy to achieve what he set out to do. In 1936, my father opened a grocery business and fell out with his father, who was also in the grocery business, as my grandfather thought it unethical to cut the price of groceries; he believed people should compete only on service and not on price. When I opened in business that was the law in Ireland, and resale price maintenance meant that one could not sell below a legitimate price established by a supplier. We have a tradition in Ireland of avoiding competition, which has not always been to our benefit.

On one occasion in Dundalk I remember selling below cost, in which I was a great believer, and causing a war between the trades in the town. Other retailers went below cost and we went lower again, so it was a chain reaction. All of the people in that part of the world came to shop in Dundalk and it benefited the whole town as we found a way to compete with each other. The difficulty now is getting the balance right for what is in the public good.

Senator Reilly recently held a function in the audiovisual room and spoke about the danger to our main streets and high streets and the devastation caused by small shops having to compete with the big supermarkets on the outskirts of town. I understand her point and why she was concerned as I have visited the main streets in towns. They are a desert in many cases, with many empty shops. This is because large stores have been built on the outskirts of town. What can be done about that? Should we hinder the competition that benefits the community, consumers and families who wish to buy food at a lower price? That is not the right answer but we should not encourage the development of stores outside towns. If we continue to do so we will demolish town centres and create retail deserts.

The same idea applies with the new order on the size of supermarkets, and slightly larger supermarkets are now permitted. In most parts of Europe there is no such control on the size of supermarkets, leading to great increases in their power. That does not help the small trader, people without a car or those who cannot shop anywhere except locally.

In Ireland there is a tradition of the State supporting anti-competitive practices, and Senator Barrett provided some great examples. Senator Barrett touched on the example I remember most, which is the airlines. Between Dublin and London the air fare was always over £200, with only two state-owned airlines - Aer Lingus and British Airways - running the service. No other airline was allowed to compete in what was an accepted practice. We thought we understood the practice but it was not until Peter Sutherland in the European arena decided to release competitive forces that the likes of Ryanair were given permission to enter the market. We can now see what has happened in the business, and there is a similar scenario in the telephone business. The State owned the telephone company and we had the worst service in Europe. It was not until competition was developed that we saw change.

How do we get the balance right? Although we are unwilling to do it enthusiastically, if we allow full competition in postal services, as decreed by Europe, the companies set up to compete with An Post will deliver at a low price but only in the cities. They will not deliver half way up a mountain and there will not be a postal service in the rest of the country. There is a balance to be struck and we should consider how to achieve competition that is of benefit to everybody.

There is one aspect of competitiveness I will speak to, which relates to the European Union and our system. We must examine the work of rating agencies, as the European Union is not doing enough in this area. There should be regulation of bond rating agencies and strict penalties should be imposed for fraudulent ratings. One ratings agency has stated that our upcoming referendum is "credit-negative" in spite of the fact that it is a purely democratic act. If the European Union is imposing the legislation before us today as part of our obligations, it should address even more damaging issues, such as the rating agencies.

In another amazing development, Iceland's former Prime Minister Haarde became the world's first leader to be put on trial on charges of negligence over the 2008 financial crisis. He was prime minister from 2006 to 2009 and is accused of gross negligence and failing to prevent the collapse of Iceland's top three banks, which were heavily involved in risky investments in the US. I do not know if that is a question of competition but we should have stronger legislation.

Returning to the legislation, one could question if the current penalties of up to five years imprisonment have enough dissuasive effect. Ms Claire Waterson of William Fry made an interesting observation, stating that the proposed provisions on follow-up cases - actions for damages where breach has already been established - are to be welcomed from the private litigants' perspective. She indicates, however, that the provision will primarily apply where there have been prior enforcement proceedings by the Competition Authority or the Director of Public Prosecutions. As public enforcement is infrequent in Ireland - we have heard enough about that today - private litigants will continue to face significant evidential difficulties in cases where there is no court case decision. Will the Minister comment on that?