Sean Barrett (Independent)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"6.—(1) Subsection (1) of section 30 of the principal Act is amended by inserting the following paragraphs after paragraph (g) -

"(h) to study and analyse any practice or method of competition or decision with implications for competition in markets for goods and services that has its origins in a decision or action by a body working with or on behalf of a Minister of Government or agency of Government;

(i) to analyse the actions and practices of all regulatory agencies, statutory bodies and ministerial departments of the State for violations of Part 1 of this Act;

(j) the right to publish to the public-at-large non-commercially sensitive findings and analyses of firms, regulators, agencies and sectors that that authority has conducted as part of this Act;

(k) to report to the Minister on an annual basis any pre-existing practices by firms, regulators, agencies and sectors that can be understood to limit, restrain or undermine competition in the markets for goods and services such that it constitutes a violation of Part 1 of this Act and to propose remedies to those violations.".

(2) The Minister or the IMF-EU-ECB mission team for the duration of the memorandum of understanding support programme may request the authority to carry out a study or analysis of any practice or method of competition affecting the supply and distribution of goods or the provision of services or any other matter relating to competition and submit a report to the Minister or to the IMF-EU-ECB mission team for the duration of the memorandum of understanding support programme in relation to the study or analysis; the authority shall comply with such a request within such period as the Minister or the IMF-EU-ECB mission team for the duration of the memorandum of understanding support programme may specify in the request.".

I welcome the Minister less than 24 hours after his last visit to the House. I have tabled this amendment because I am trying to incorporate what the Minister found in the Dáil and the report on competition policy by Goodbody in the last month that we must strengthen his hand and adopt a more radical approach to competition policy because of its importance. That is the purpose of the amendment.

There is a view that the Competition Authority has been too weak and has not stood up where there have been abuses of competition rules. There is also a strong view that this is an important issue for Ireland and that, although we have a strong internationally traded sector, it is held back by the privilege and regulatory capture of the sheltered sector. That is a strong theme that the Competitiveness Council has been pushing - that we avail of the opportunity arising from the IMF-EU agreement to promote and develop competition policy as a means of developing the rest of the economy and that we have too many sheltered sectors and sectors protected by Departments, with too many instances of regulatory capture, where the industry takes over its own regulation. There is a lack of a strong focus, whereby the Competition Authority would take on inefficient regulation in areas such as transport, energy and health insurance. We also need a much smarter performance from the professions and other sheltered sectors. The delivery of the programme is part of the rescue package with the IMF. I heard Mr. Richard Downes reporting from Washington this morning that stricter enforcement of competition policy had been included in the IMF briefings in Washington on the scope of the programme.

This is a also an opportunity. I have in mind the Office of Fair Trading in Britain. It found that the regulation of airports by the Civil Aviation Authority had been captured by the British Airports Authority and intervened to secure the competitive sell-off of these airports. We have regulatory capture in transport; the Public Transport Regulation Act reserved all the routes for one company and all its subsidies with the agreement of the Competition Authority. The Health Insurance Authority exists to protect VHI, as does Government policy, on which we have lost cases in both the Supreme Court and the European Court. There is an outstanding case on how much money we owe the people wrongly accused of not insuring old people.

There are people in the energy field who believe our energy costs - electricity and gas - are far too high and that stricter regulation of these sectors is necessary. There is a €40 million subsidy in the case of peat and the same in the case of wind energy. These sectors have captured their regulators and operate outside the realm of competition policy which we need so badly. There was an interesting remark made by the Minister for Finance in the Dáil that the professions in Ireland had a rule that dog did not eat dog, but it is about time the taxpayer got a bite. We need to open up all of these areas to competition.

That is the purpose of my amendment, that we use, as the Competitiveness Council states, this opportunity when we are trying to help the economy out of the difficulties it experienced between 2008 and 2010, of which improving our competitiveness is part. The general view when the Minister and the Minister of State were here to take Second and Committee Stages was that they were not being radical enough. The Competition Authority issued only one summons and four warrants in 2011. It does not reassure customers that it is acting on their behalf and does not scare the cartels. This should be an all-government approach which would lead to huge benefits for the economy, some of which I will outline.

The Milliman report shows the high costs of VHI do not stem from the fact that it insures a lot of old people but from the fact that it keeps them in hospital for 11.6 days for treatment that should take 3.7 days to complete. The last time he was in the House the Minister quoted Adam Smith. One of his quotations was that monopolists produced too little, charged too much and greatly increased their emoluments as a result. Substantial benefits would derive from competing health insurance companies reducing the costs of hospitalisation, for instance, as it would have a cross-over benefit to the public sector. It took a parliamentary revolt and subsequent policy changes by the late Jim Mitchell and Garret FitzGerald to open up the aviation sector. Many of us will recall a time when it cost more than £200 to travel from Dublin to London, with one airline carrying 2 million passengers on that route annually. This year, Aer Lingus and Ryanair will carry 90 million passengers between them. That increased competition and enhanced service has allowed us to develop our tourism industry. These are the contingent benefits of competition. If energy costs can be reduced, for example, it will not only benefit householders but also help to stimulate those sectors of the economy which the Minister is trying to promote. We all took note when one of the representatives of the EU-IMF troika observed on a recent visit to the State that the cost of a GP call-out in Brussels is approximately half what it is in Dublin. In that regard, the Minister has received strong support in this House for proposals to open up the General Medical Services, GMS, list to new doctors.

What is proposed in this legislation is merely part of what needs to be done to make ours a truly competitive economy. The Goodbody review and the report of the National Competitiveness Council suggest that a more radical approach is required. The IMF made the same call this morning, if I have interpreted Richard Downes's report correctly. We are behind on the timetable we agreed for promoting a more competitive economy. The purpose of my amendment is to strengthen the Minister's hand and to convey the support in this House for measures that would take on the sheltered sectors in our society. We must make the economy more productive to bring the unemployment level back down from 14.5% to approximately 5%. There are far too many restrictive practices in various sectors which have proven immune to the new economic realities. We must step up to the plate and assume a much more active and interventionist competition policy. Everybody will reap the benefits of such an approach.