Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit freisin. Just as my colleague, Senator Malcolm Byrne, was standing in for his party spokesperson, I am standing in for mine, Senator Ahearn, who unfortunately cannot be here but who had a discussion with me about the Bill. We are certainly happy, on behalf of the Fine Gael group, to welcome it and its provisions.

I have heard what the Minister of State said about the delay in transposing the directive. It is regrettable that we missed the deadline but I understand the explanation he has given. It is obvious from the Bill that considerable work has gone into it. To echo a point I frequently make in debates in this House, as excellently drafted as this legislation might be, it is pretty illegible regarding its amendment of the 2002 Act. One cannot read this in isolation. I have said time and again that when dealing with amending legislation, we should produce a consolidated or revised version because the reality is that, in the future, we will have to work from what the Law Reform Commission does. There may be a practical element to that but, from the point of view of creating legislation that ordinary people can deal with in a real way, we should, instead of having a section telling us what section has been amended, have a section telling us what the section actually states so it can be very clearly read. That is a technical drafting point that I feel strongly about.

It is important to notice, in the context of this legislation, that we are dealing with a quite competitive business environment in this country. For the most part, we have business sectors and organisations that engage in proper, lawful, considered, competitive activity that benefits us all. It is tremendously important that we eschew protectionism and put in place laws that ensure anti-competitive practices are not tolerated. We say that not merely to follow the directive from the European Union and European Commission but to acknowledge that the anti-competitive practices are bad for business. They make it extremely difficult for new entrants in a market or industry sector to thrive or have a fair opportunity to compete. They are bad for consumers, customers and citizens within the State. Not only do they promote higher practices but they also affect the quality of the product or service in question. It is to the benefit of everybody in Ireland to have a competitive environment that ensures businesses and companies compete against each other to provide not only the best product but also the best product at the best possible price. That is at the heart of the competition legislation we are debating.

By extension, it necessarily follows that pro-competitive behaviour and pro-competition measures benefit the economy as a whole. We have a much more agile, functional economy when we have genuine competition that serves the business sector, consumers and ordinary citizens. Such competition is good for our economy and means it can grow sustainably. Those anti-competitive measures and practices that have certainly been present in most sectors in Ireland, although not recently, stifle the economy in no uncertain terms and prevent business sectors from growing. Therefore, the basis for the competition Acts is very strong.

It is appropriate to credit the EU for the leadership it has shown to all the member states, including Ireland, in pushing an agenda for greater competition. In fairness, we do not credit it frequently enough for how it has inspired a change in particular areas. Things that come to mind are competition and health and safety rules. The idea is that all the countries come together and state they must promote a culture in a certain vein, with the agreement of all the individual governments. This means we actually push the required culture on a legislative basis here. Citizens and those of us in business benefit from that competitive environment when it is realised here. This has worked very well generally. It can be seen very clearly when one compares our system with that in countries around the world that pursue protectionist agendas. I am thinking about the United States, in particular, and how it absolutely stifles the ability of businesses to get involved or provide proper products and services to citizens. Our system works well and has given us a very modernised and strong economic landscape within which business can work and we can buy goods and services. That does not mean it is always perfect. It can be frustrating sometimes when businesses or individuals cannot do something because it is contrary to competition law but, on the whole, we derive great benefit from the leadership of the European Union in this regard.

Let me say a word about promoting Irish products, notwithstanding the provisions of this legislation and the Act of 2002.I do not think either this Bill or the 2002 Act precludes us from promoting Irish products, or products being produced or made in Ireland as opposed to solely by Irish companies. I understand the reason we cannot promote an Irish company alone but the State should, as I think it is entitled to do, pursue programmes that promote sustainable products that are grown, produced or developed in this country by businesses in this country, not necessarily Irish businesses but businesses that come here and use our raw materials, employees and human resources. It is legitimate for the Government to pursue those, along the lines of what the Guaranteed Irish label does in pursuing an agenda of buying local and shopping local. It is important to remember that competition legislation does not stop us from investing in our communities as consumers or from promoting businesses at the local level - shopping local, buying local and even eating and drinking local, which is also important. In fact, competition law encourages it because it provides products at local level that are attractive to the consumer.

In regard to the technical aspects of the Bill, as I noted this is substantial legislation. On the sanctions provision, I am generally slow to welcome the removal of matters from the courts but that may be my barristerial mind coming to bear on it. Having a streamlined administrative process is welcome. Having the competition authorities, such as the CCPC and the relevant bodies mentioned in the Bill, pursue matters on an administrative basis is streamlined and more effective and efficient, which has to be welcomed.

In regard to the sanctions, as Senator Byrne mentioned, will the Minister of State clarify whether we should look at the personal consequences for individuals who make decisions in regard to anti-competitive behaviour? Will there be direct personal consequences for white-collar crime, including incarceration? How will that work? Will those rules on white-collar crime be properly enforced, as, in fairness, they have been in recent years? More important, and Senator Byrne also raised this issue, as regards the value of the fines and the disincentive they create, should they be index-linked fashion or set as a function of the profits of a company? That is where we can really hit people hard. If a portion of their profits will be taken, as opposed to just a monetary amount which will be more or less significant depending on the turnover of the company, should we look at that? Will the Minister of State clarify that any fine will not be tax deductible, that is, it will not be deducted from the tax liability of a corporate entity but will have to be paid out of post-tax profits?

I welcome the Bill. A great deal of work has been done on this and there is much for us to work on in the future as we build a more competitive and more streamlined economy.