Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)

Sinn Féin welcomes legislation which will promote national competitiveness, tackle corruption, hold business leaders to account and reduce costs to people and businesses. However, we believe there are parts of this legislation which are weak and lacking in a couple of key areas. In that respect, we will table amendments to strengthen the legislation in certain areas. We will probably table amendments in regard to civil fines as an option for the Competition Authority, the lack of obligation on the Government to respond adequately to issues raised by the Competition Authority, the failure to properly resource the Competition Authority and the stand alone nature of this legislation.

We support the measures in this Bill to tackle corrupt practices but we do not believe it does enough to tackle these practices and it will not necessarily result in a fairer and more competitive environment. We welcome the tougher criminal penalties available to those engaging in corrupt practices because they undermine our economy and penalise ordinary workers and consumers.

The intent behind this legislation is to strengthen competition law enforcement by ensuring the availability of effective sanctions to deal with infringements of competition law, but the major flaw in this Bill, which critically undermines it, is the lack of provision of civil fines as requested by the Competition Authority which sought the provision of civil fines to deal with the so-called non-hard core infringement. Central to this is the abuse of dominant market share, including refusal to supply, predatory pricing and exclusivity agreements. We remain concerned that the absence of a provision for civil fines will impact on the ability to deal with these types of abuses. The development and implementation of a civil fines mechanism would deal with the abuse of dominant position and it would strengthen the provisions of the Bill and further safeguard consumer and local business. The role of civil fines is to punish corrupt practices where the burden of proof is too onerous to reach. They are a medium strengthen provision which should be utilised and I hope the Minister will look at this again.

We are concerned the Bill does not oblige the Government to respond to the issues raised by the Competition Authority. Issues that impede competitiveness may require Government action and-or legislation. Best practice across Europe places responsibility on a government to respond to a report by the relevant competition authority within a specified timescale and the relevant competition authority has the ability to table legislation for consideration. In this State, there is no obligation to consider let alone act on the recommendations of the authority. If the Government is serious about dealing with corrupt practices, it should consider including a clause on the obligation to respond to recommendations of the authority with a response which must outline the Government's proposed actions with regard to each recommendation. Again, we see no reason this gaping hole cannot be amended in the legislation.

This legislation places much responsibility on the Competition Authority but the question must be asked: is it fit for purpose? Is the Government committed to supporting it with adequate resources and responding to the issues it raises? Like other speakers, we support this legislation but we do not believe it goes far enough. If the Minister could consider that along with our amendments on Committee Stage, it would be much appreciated.