Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Senator's amendment does not help the issue. We are discussing cases where the commission enters into arrangements with regulatory bodies to, inter alia, ensure as far as practicable, consistency between the decisions made or other steps taken by the Commission and the prescribed bodies in so far as any part of those decisions consist or relate to consumer protection and welfare and determination of any issue of competition between the undertaking. This is a provision to ensure the various regulatory bodies take competition and consumer protection issues more seriously and embrace them in an arrangement between the competition and consumer commission and the regulatory body in question. This is a positive section, providing a positive avenue for the commission to influence public policy.
I do not quite follow what Senator Barrett is trying to achieve in his amendment. It indicates that "Any body outlined in subsection (10) and/or any arrangement shall be considered
to exhibit a reasonable bias that can be considered by a reasonable person to constitute a pattern of action or inaction that contravenes the public interest and favours a regulatory body or regulatee." I fail to see what that adds to what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to give the competition commission a way of entering into a formal arrangement with a body to ensure that the competition view of the world is in some way embraced in the decision making processes, among other elements. That is good.
The Senator seems to fear that the competition authority would enter into some sort of arrangement that would in itself not be amicable to the interests of consumers and the market. The mandate is to try to influence these bodies in order to protect consumers and competition. For the life of me I do not see what the amendment would add. The Senator is rightly flagging that regulatory capture can be an affliction of regulatory bodies but perhaps we are offering a partial, although not a whole, solution. The capacity to enter into arrangements with such bodies that embraces some sort of competition principle is good. The amendment does not add to this.
The competition commission will have other weapons in its armoury other than these arrangements and it will have, for example, power to comment on legislation or other initiatives. Currently, it is involved with some of the matters raised by the Senator, including bus routes and health insurance. Its involvement may not be in the public arena but it is very involved in some of the issues which have emerged.
I do not dismiss the concern about regulatory capture but this section and the provision in particular is a good attempt at trying to give the commission another weapon in its armoury. It is not a primary weapon but a secondary tool that can be used from time to time. As it stands, the section is good and I commend it to the House. I do not accept the amendment.