Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1991

Vol. 409 No. 4

Competition Bill, 1991: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister. It is proposed with the agreement of the House that we take together for discussion purposes amendments Nos. 1, 2, 85 and 86. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) An order under subsection (1) may as respects the repeal effected by section 22 of the provisions of the Act of 1972 fix different days for the repeal of different provisions of that Act or for the repeal for different purposes of any provision of that Act.".

This amendment, and the other Government amendment, No. 85, taken together are designed to make certain that the repeals provided for in section 22 can take place on a phased basis. In particular they will enable the Minister to keep a particular restrictive practices order and enforcement provisions for as long as is felt necessary. The issue which underlies the sections is whether the groceries order should be repealed. I want to make it clear that there is no question of that order, which has given rise to some representations, being repealed immediately. There will be a transitional period. As I made clear already, the precise extent of the transitional period will depend on what the Fair Trade Commission say in their report on the review of the order and on how well the Bill operates in practice.

So far as amendment No. 2 is concerned, the difficulty which would arise——

We are not debating amendment No. 2 now.

I understood we were debating amendments Nos. 1, 85 and 86. While those amendments deal with the order referred to by the Minister, the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order, 1987 amendment No. 2 does not.

The Chair was careful to repeat that amendments Nos. 1, 2, 85 and 86 could be taken together.

I did not hear you mention amendment No. 2 which deals with a different issue. I intend to make different arguments on that amendment.

If Deputy Barry wants to exclude it we will have to agree.

It might be better to exclude it at this stage in the interests of order.

We are taking now amendments Nos. 1, 85 and 86. We are not discussing amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Barry.

The Fair Trade Commission in their report on competition policy suggested that two restrictive practices orders needed to be retained, namely, the groceries order and the motor spirits order. However, in their report on the supply and distribution of motor spirits which was published on 6 May last the Fair Trade Commission stated that they were satisfied that the operation of competition legislation would obviate the need for a new motor spirits order and recommended that the existing order be revoked. The Fair Trade Commission's report on their review of the groceries order is awaited. It is expected that this report will be submitted to me during the summer. It is proposed that the decision on the timing of the revocation of that order, if that were decided on, be postponed until consideration is given to the Fair Trade Commission's recommendations and account is taken of what they have to say. Sections 2 and 22 of the Bill which are now being amended will empower the Minister to phase in the repeal of the parent Act and the orders made thereunder.

I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more about this matter except to emphasise that these amendments make it abundantly clear that each individual order made under the 1972 Act can be treated separately. There was a possibility under the Bill as originally drafted that all of them would have had to be taken together. These two amendments make it abundantly clear that each individual order made under the 1972 Act can be revoked separately or if it is so decided as a matter of policy not to revoke a particular order that order need not or will not be revoked. The amendments make it clear that that can be done. This relates in particular to the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order, about which there is some controversy.

I am glad the Minister has made that last point about individual orders because I think it needed clarification and his amendment No. 85 does that. The Minister's amendment No. 1 will not have the same effects as my amendment No. 86 because he appears to be qualifying the provision whereas my amendment states specifically:

"(2) The Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order, 1987... is not repealed by virtue of this section or any other section of this Act.

From what the Minister has said here this morning he intends that his will be a temporary measure whereas mine is a permanent measure and proposes that the Groceries Order should be a permanent part of the legislation of this House. It is fair to say that there was concern in some quarters when it was introduced originally but in the past three years it has served both the business community and the consumers extremely well. It is a fact that the cost of food in particular has not risen as fast as the consumer price index. As well as that the order has had the effect of revitalising many of the smaller towns and the suburbs of larger towns because smaller traders have had the confidence to invest knowing they would not be put out of business by unfair practices and below cost selling by bigger supermarket chains who could afford in limited instances to carry loss leaders in order to gain a more dominant position in the market, and when the smaller shopkeeper was forced out of business they could adjust their prices accordingly. Cases were quoted where such incidents happened. One can give numerous examples, the most recent being the issuing of a £5 voucher when one spent a certain amount in the supermarkets in Tallaght before Christmas last. I know also of cases where drink prices were cut to such an extent by the large supermarket chains in the period before Christmas that the specialist businesses such as off-licences were forced to close down after Christmas. The loss incurred by cutting the price of drink could be offset by the increased profits in other areas of the supermarket and this has helped to eliminate competition in sectors of the trade. These were the kinds of considerations that prompted the Minister of the day to introduce the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order in 1987 and I believe it should not be repealed even on a temporary basis. It appears that the Minister intends to look at this again when the Fair Trade Commission report on the grocery trade in July. Let me say however that the Fair Trade Commission reported on competition last December 12 months and it was quite extraordinary that we saw no sign of that report until, coincidentally, this Bill was published in April of this year. At the same time, the Fair Trade Commission are conducting an investigation into the sector that has the highest profile in regard to competition, the grocery trade, but they will not be reporting on it until mid summer. Yet, without that report, we are being asked to debate this Competition Bill into an element of competition that affects a wide part of business and every consumer in the country. It is like cycling with only one pedal on the bicycle.

I hope the Minister will accept my amendment No. 86 instead of basing his decision on the report of the Fair Trade Commission in July. As I have said, the 1987 Order has served the interests of the consumer and of small businesses very well. It would be an unhappy day if any action in this House were to drive out small businesses and concentrate trade in the grocery sector, in particular, in the hands of a few more powerful operators. For that reason I suggest that the Minister accepts my amendment in place of his own which would allow him to repeal the order at a later date should he so decide.

I would like to raise one point with the Minister. I am generally in sympathy with his commitment not to repeal the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order, 1987 at this stage but could he be more specific? Can he tell us also if he will be influenced to so repeat it on the basis of the Fair Trade Commission study? I mention this point as the Minister has said he would want to see the operation of the Act in practice. I wonder how realistic it is to have that as the yardstick of measurement because if the groceries order remains in vogue the operation of the Act will not be much of a guideline when the Order is still there as it will determine various matters that would otherwise have to be determined by the operation of the Act.

I would not be disposed to accepting Deputy Barry's amendment No. 86 for the simple reason that it is in black and white terms and does not take any account of what might happen in the future, both so far as any possible recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission are concerned or any possible changes in business practices within that particular trade. The reason I believe that the way I am proposing to deal with the matter in my amendment is better than what Deputy Barry proposes is that it may well be that the Fair Trade Commission, for example, would recommend the retention of the existing order with amendments and it would not be possible to make those amendments if we had the type of provision Deputy Barry is suggesting, which is that the 1987 order as drafted and passed in 1987 be retained permanently and be frozen in the terms of 1987. The way I am suggesting the matter be dealt with under amendments Nos. 1 and 85 allows a certain flexibility. If, for example, the Fair Trade Commission were to recommend the repeal of the order after a particular time, what I am proposing would allow that to be done if it was decided to do so, or if the Commission recommended amendments, it would allow the amendments to be made and that might well be appropriate. It would be wrong to think that the commission's views on these matters are as set out in their report of early 1990 on competition policy generally because Members will recall the publication a couple of months ago of a report on the motor spirit trade where they recommended the repeal of the order in question; and I have accepted that recommendation subject to this Bill being passed and the repeal not coming into effect until the Bill is up and running. That is what the Commission feel is appropriate.

There is a danger, which I am sure Deputy Barry will recognise, that the 1987 order will go out of date. It would be wrong to have it frozen in the terms as drafted in 1987. It would be better to have flexibility to make amendments, if necessary. It would also be wrong for this House to make up its mind finally and definitively in regard to the regulation of the grocery trade when we are awaiting with some interest a report by the commission on the grocery trade. They recently completed the taking of evidence from quite a number of interested parties whose points of view they will have to evaluate before reaching a conclusion. I hope to hear from them during the summer. It would be wrong not to allow ourselves the flexiblity to consider the Fair Trade Commission's report.

I see the point the Minister is making but there is not an exact comparison with the petroleum order. The grocery issue is quite separate. The point about the 1987 Act is that if there were no Competition Bill before this House and the Fair Trade Commission recommended changes, presumably the Minister would amend that Act on the basis of their recommendation. The position there does not change. The Competition Bill takes power away from this House and gives it to the Minister. If the Minister proposes to amend the 1987 Act he should bring his proposals before this House. The Minister's amendment No. 1 allows him to make changes without coming back to the House. I suggest that the 1987 Act should be left as it is and if the Fair Trade Commission make recommendations which the Minister accepts he will have to come back to this House and argue for those changes. Under the terms of his amendment he can do so by ministerial order without coming back to the House.

With respect, Deputy Barry is under a misapprehension under two headings. It is not strictly correct to refer to the 1987 Act since it is an order which was subsequently confirmed by an Act. We are talking about an order made by the Minister and subsequently confirmed. If it were proposed to amend the 1987 order the Minister would have to come to the House anyway because he would make an order amending it but it would not have effect until confirmed by the Oireachtas under the 1972 legislation, which would remain in force for this purpose under sections 2 and 22 as amended on the lines I am suggesting. It will have to come back anyway. The House is not deprived of the opportunity to express views on it.

Is the Minister saying that if his amendment is accepted he must come back to the House if he decides to amend the order, as opposed to the Act?

Yes. The Minister must come back if he proposes to amend it.

In that case I accept amendment No. 1. The Minister's amendment would have the effect of not repealing the order made in 1987 until the Minister comes back to the House and asks the House to amend the order.

If the Minister proposed to amend the order of 1987, which might well be what would happen, depending on what the Fair Trade Commission might have to say, he would have to come back.

Otherwise it is as the order was in 1987?

He could revoke it at some time in the future but if he wanted to amend it he would have to come back.

Is it the case that if the Minister decides to revoke the order he does not have to come back to this House? If so, I am not withdrawing my amendment. I want to provide that the Minister must come back to this House if he decides either to revoke or to amend the 1987 order.

If he decides to change it by way of amendment he must come back.

But not in the case of revocation.

If he were to revoke it altogether, it could be revoked under the proposed legislation, except that an order under this Bill would of course have to be laid before the House.

The Minister is not spreading light. If the 1987 order is to be amended the Minister must come back. That is clear. If the order is to be revoked, he does not have to come back, but section 22 provides that the Minister would have to come back to the House to revoke the 1987 Order.

It would be done by way of an order under section 22 and that order would have to be laid before the House.

If we agree to the Minister's amendment and I withdraw mine, the Minister will come back to this House if he decides to revoke the 1987 Order.

I do not want to mislead the Deputy. What I have said is precisely right but the Deputy may be trying to read more into what I have said. I do not want to mislead the Deputy in any way. If an amending order is to be made it must be passed by this House. If a revocation order is to be made it must be laid on the table of this House.

Maybe we would invite Deputy Taylor as a broker to say something new rather than compound what we are discussing.

We have spent a fair amount of time on Deputy Barry's amendment No. 86 and I wonder if it achieves very much. It seems to contain a declaratory statement rather than achieve anything specific. It simply states that the order is not repealed by virtue of this section. Even without the amendment, the order is not repealed. The insertion of the Deputy's amendment would not achieve or alter anything very much. Perhaps I am misreading it but I do not think it will affect any future action of the Minister. The amendment does not purport to provide that the order shall not be repealed at some future date except by adopting a particular procedure. It is a declaratory statement which is obviously correct anyway. It does not add to or detract from the position one iota.

If it is in the Bill as passed, it has to come back here to be amended.

It does not say it shall not be repealed except by a particular procedure. It simply confirms the position that it is not repealed. Nothing in this Bill repeals the 1987 Order.

I understand the Minister can revoke the 1987 order under section 22. If the amendment was accepted he could not do so under section 22. What I want from the Minister is an undertaking that if he decides to revoke the 1987 order, besides laying it before this House we can have a debate on it so that the House will have a say in it. If the Minister does that I will be willing to accept his amendment.

It would not be unreasonable to debate it. It is obviously a matter of some public interest. The debate will take place, of course, in the context of the report of the Fair Trade Commission which will give the arguments both ways, which would be enlightening. I think it would be not unreasonable to have a debate.

I want to comment on the point made by Deputy Taylor. This is a declaratory statement that says the order is not repealed by virtue of this section but it does not say that the Minister may not revoke the order at any stage in the future if he is so minded. Is all this debate getting us somewhere? We can anticipate that perhaps the recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission will cause an amendment to be made and in that event it will have to come before the House anyway, but in the event that it does not, I do not see the enactment of this particular subsection preventing the Minister revoking the order at some future stage.

Deputy Rabbitte, we all have to accept that even though it might not appear to be getting us somewhere, if in the opinion of the Deputy in whose name the amendment appears there is some point yet to be clarified, we must bear with it.

Deputies Rabbitte and Taylor are right to this extent: it would not prevent the repeal of the order, but it would have to be done under the 1972 Act and not under the 1991 Act. It is really immaterial under which Act it is repealed if it is to be repealed.

On the understanding that any revocation or amendment of the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order will come before this House, I will accept the Minister's amendment and withdraw my own.

Would it?

I have set out what the position would be and I really do not think there is any point going over it again. I have set out very precisely what the position will be.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Part II of the Act shall not be brought into operation until the Competition Authority has been established and operating for a period of at least six months during which time the Authority will issue guidelines on this Act and on its own procedures and also has issued the areas to which block exemptions for categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices will apply.".

The Minister's amendment dealt with the Restrictive Practices (Groceries) Order, 1987. Because of the lack of consultation by the Department with the various interests concerned leading up to the publication of this Bill, because the Fair Trade Commission report on Competition Policy and the Bill were both published at about the same time, and because of the huge amount of work required to comply with the terms of this Bill when it is passed, I suggest that it would not be unreasonable that the Act should not be brought into operation until the competition authority has been established for a period of at least six months during which time the authority would issue guidelines on this legislation, on its own procedures, on the various areas to which block exemptions would apply and on categories of agreements, decisions and practices to which it will apply. The part I wish to see postponed is Part II relating to the rules of competition, anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices. There are four or five sections of decisions that need to be gone through. Up to a month ago, nobody had sight of this Bill and there is a huge amount of work to be done by lawyers, small businesses, accountants, etc., before they can decide whether they do comply with the Bill. What I am suggesting is that after the competition authority is established — and I presume that will be in a short period of time—there should be a period of six months during which people who are affected by this Bill will have a chance to study its implications. Indeed, the authority itself, which presumably will be neutral, will have to draw up certain guidelines and rules for firms who may have to comply or apply for exemptions under the Bill. They should have time to study the Bill and its implications before they are actually affected by the Bill.

That is the purpose of my amendment No. 2. I hope I have explained how it is different from amendment No. 1. I am looking for a commitment from the Minister that would allow people to study the Bill. Every undertaking in the country is affected by this Bill and all of them have to decide whether they are affected by the Bill and they will all have to take advice according to the guidelines laid down by the authority. There should, therefore, be a breathing space between the enactment of the Bill and the coming into effect after the authority is established of the measures contained in the Bill. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that a period of at least six months should elapse between those two occasions.

The effect of Deputy Barry's amendment would be to ensure that Part II of the Bill did not come into force for at least six months and that during that time the authority would issue guidelines. If Part II were not in force when the Bill was passed there could be no notifications to it and accordingly there could be no decisions by the authority. In particular, there could be no block exemptions, which is one of the things Deputy Barry suggests should apply. It would not be possible to do that if Part II were not in. The best guidelines that the authority can provide are decisons on real as opposed to theoretical cases. The competition authority therefore needs to operate with notifications and Part II generally must come into force as soon as is practicable after the passing of the Bill.

Section 2 of the Bill allows the phased introduction of provisions and consideration will be given as to how this can best be done. The rigid approach inherent in the proposed amendment strikes me as not being appropriate. In particular, the Deputy should bear in mind that section 7 (2) of the Bill gives one year for existing agreements to be notified, which is twice as long as the period he mentions here. I think that will meet the point he makes in relation to companies that are potentially covered by the Bill and will need some period to adjust. Under section 7 they have up to a year to make the notification. It is during that period too that the competition authority will draw rules which will exclude certain small categories of agreements that would not have much effect on competition. For example, they will have to apply a de minimus rule but I am not trying to set out here in legislation what would be an appropriate definition of de minimus because it would not be appropriate to do it. It is better to let the authority have the jurisdiction to make their own rules in that regard.

We are seeking to operate as closely as we can to the European system by analogy with Articles 85 and 86 and how that is applied and, of course, the Deputy and the House will be aware that those Articles in the Treaty do not give detailed rules; the rules are made by the Commission. It is best that that sort of lead be followed.

The Workers' Party's general position on this Bill is that there are many defects in it. I am not too sure it is going to achieve what it sets out to achieve but, generally speaking, if we do not go down the American road of the anti-trust legislation we must go for the European system the Minister suggested. Therefore, we agree with the thrust of the Bill.

However, in all the circumstances of how this Bill appeared it is not fair to consider Deputy Barry's amendment as unreasonable. I have the impression that business and industry have been taken somewhat by surprise and have only recently been alerted to the implications and significance of the Bill. I do not know about other Deputies, but I received the views of the CII on the matter only yesterday. It seems there are many implications and areas that are vague in terms of the advice one could give to industry when preparing for this Bill and require further study and time for analysis. For example, the Minister announced only in his Second Stage speech that the Fair Trade Commission report on competition policy had been published. As I remarked on Second Stage, I had sought that report a month earlier and it was not available. Therefore, for legislation that will have ramifications as wide as the Minister suggests there is an argument to be made to allow business time to prepare a more considered view.

I am not saying the Minister should necessarily take on board everything the CII, RGDATA or any other body suggest, but, from reading press comment on it recently and comments from the CII, it appears that business is only now alerted to the possible implications. That has been a feature of legislation during this term. We have got very little time to get the gen on important legislation coming before the House. Having regard to the extent of other burdens one must carry as a Deputy, it is very difficult to have prepared in the manner one would like. There are precedents in the House for key regulations made under a particular Act not being implemented for months or longer after the Act has been enacted.

I do not know if the six months' respite Deputy Barry is seeking can be seen as unreasonable. I wonder whether it is fair to say a great deal of the work could not go on anyway even if Part II was postponed. The Minister mentioned in passing that he reckoned the competition authority would have to look at the introduction of a de minimis rule. That issue was raised by the CII. I am not always in favour of such a recommendation. In the area of disclosure of information that kind of regulation, by setting a threshold of employees, turnover or whatever the criterion is, has been used by many companies to avoid obligations of disclosure of information to employees and so on. Nonetheless, it seems practical in this situation that some de minimis regulation will have to be considered. Surely that is the kind of thing a new authority could proceed with, and, for the sake of six months to enable interested parties to respond to this legislation, no damage would be done if they were given that kind of respite.

Up to a point I sympathise with what Deputy Barry is trying to achieve, but I do not think it would be realistic or necessary to set up the competition authority and have them doing I do not know exactly what for six months before the meat and bones of the Bill, namely Part II, is brought into operation. Section 4 (1) deals with concerted practices that are prohibited and so on. I do not see that any six months' respite is necessary. That kind of activity is reprehensible. It is being made unlawful and should not be taking place now whether the Bill is passed or not. I do not see a further six months' respite on that line as necessary or appropriate. They should be toeing the line on those issues right away without waiting for the Bill to become law.

On the issues of categories, agreements and such matters perhaps there is something to be said for it but, again, I sympathise with the Minister's position. It is difficult to know whether it will be possible in the abstract, as it were, for the authority to give guidelines on what sort of concerted agreements they might license or not accept. Once we make the decision that the Bill is appropriate it might be better to get on with it as speedily as possible. As the Minister indicated, he has the power to introduce certain parts of the Bill on a phased basis. No doubt he, and his officials, will look at how that can best be done.

The message of the Bill is going to have to be brought home forcibly and quickly enough to those companies and institutions who are practising abuse on these issues. They will have to get the message and apply themselves to what is required of them under the Bill. Let us not fall over too much to sympathise with those companies. They are rich, powerful institutions. They have at their command resources, professional advice, experts, lawyers, accountants and so on. I would not be at all surprised if many of their experts and professionals are burning the midnight oil to see if there is any way they can get around the Bill and continue with some of their more undesirable practices that have made this Bill so necessary. I do not think we need sympathise with them all that much. We are dealing with powerful institutions who are well able to apply themselves to this kind of problem. It will be a problem for some of them and rightly so.

While I understand what Deputy Barry is about, I do not think his amendments are necessary. It would be better that the provisions of the Bill be put into operation as quickly as possible. The Minister should be cautious about using the powers he has to delay the coming into operation of various provisions of it. They should all be up and running as quickly as possible.

Deputy Taylor said he understands what I am trying to do. From his contribution I do not think he does. In a fine emotional speech he talked about big industries with endless resources at their disposal doing all this work and having accountants and lawyers looking into the implications of the Bill for them. However, they are not the people I am talking about. I am talking about the small concerns who have none of these facilities and are still caught by this Bill. Any corner shop is in theory responsible under this Bill because there is no de minimis clause in it. The Minister has said, and this is the first time I have heard it said, that his intention was that the authority should introduce a de minimis rule, but that is one very good reason for waiting for the bringing into effect of this Bill until firms who may feel they have to make inquiries, hire lawyers and accountants to see whether they are affected by the Bill, find, because of the very small size of their operations, they are not affected by the Bill. That is quite reasonable.

Responding to my opening proposal the Minister said that as far as practical it should be brought in after the authority are set up. I agree with that. That is precisely the spirit behind my amendment. I am saying that as far as practical a six month period is reasonable to allow the authority see what is the practical de minimis rule. It should be brought in in this instance so that the firms will be in a position to know whether they are affected by the Competition Bill. If they are not affected, they will not have to bear the further cost of making an application seeking an exemption. Of course, the major firms to which Deputy Taylor referred will have to immediately start working on their applications if they have to apply for an exemption. They will have to get the best advice possible, and they have the resources to do that.

We all agree with the thrust of the Bill but we are concerned to ensure that it will be workable. As Deputy Rabbitte rightly said, the Fair Trade Commission's report on competition was evidently in the Department of Industry and Commerce and with the Minister for 18 months. However, the report was not made available to the people who would be affected by a competition Bill. Even if the draft Bill at the back of the report had been made available to the industry during those 18 months so that they could make representations to the Minister, it would have been some help. However, the first time we saw the Fair Trade Commission's report or the Bill was less than a month ago. All commercial undertakings had to gear themselves to find out whether they will be affected by the Bill before the authority who will lay down the rules is set up. The Minister said the Bill should be bought into force as soon as practicable. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that the phrase "as soon as practicable" should be interpreted as a certain period of, say, six months, before this section, which is the effective section so far as industry is concerned, comes into play.

I want to deal first with the points made by Deputy Rabbitte. He suggested that all this was entirely new so far as industry, the CII and those whom they represent are concerned. Of course, that is not so. The traded sector in Irish industry have had to deal with Articles 85 and 86 since 1 January 1973, whether or not they liked it. It did not have much effect on many of them and those it did effect adapted pretty quickly to it; it is really common sense and operates fairly smoothly. Therefore, a great many of them are familiar with what is required and, perhaps more importantly, are familiar with what is not allowed.

It was mentioned that the Fair Trade Commission report on competition was published on 16 April, the Bill was presented to the House on 12 April and the Bill and the report were published together on 16 April. I gave a press conference that day drawing attention to both the Bill and the report and there was plenty of opportunity for those who had an interest in the matter to study it.

With regard to the de minimis question, the authority would need to see the notifications in order to make proper judgments on these rules. The rules are not like the rules on, for example takeovers where there are thresholds in terms of employees, assets or turnsover. This would not be appropriate in this case and this is why it is not wise to try to lay down the rules which will have to be laid down in this House. The authority will be seeking to exclude activities which do not have any real influence on competition. One cannot define that in terms of, for example, turn-over, assets or employees. A different form of definition will have to be worked out in practice over a period of time. In addition, the rules will vary from sector to sector. One cannot assume that because a particular level is appropriate in one sector a similar level is appropriate somewhere else. It might be very much bigger or smaller as the case may be.

Deputy Barry said that small businesses might be caught by this Bill. No businesses will be caught by the Bill; what will be caught are agreements which businesses, big or small, enter into which are anti-competitive or restrictive in nature or concerted practices. It is those agreements and practices and not the ordinary day-to-day running of a business which will be caught. If you do not enter into restrictive agreements of that kind, then the Bill will not affect you. The Bill relates only to these matters. Therefore, the Bill will not of itself be a matter of day-to-day concern for businesses, big or small, except in so far as they enter into various forms of prohibitive practices and agreements or seek to abuse a dominant position in the marketplace.

It has been suggested that people are only now beginning to realise the significance of the Bill. This was one of the most signalled Bills over the 21 months before it was published. I made about 12 speeches on the principles of the Bill and the Bill is in accord with what I said in those speeches. I signalled the Bill very clearly. Since the Bill was published both I and officials of my Department have had a large number of consultations with various interests who expressed their views on the Bill. A number of seminars have been held on the Bill during which all aspects have been gone into in some detail.

I want to come back again to the point that if I were to exclude Part II of the Bill I might as well not bring in the Bill at all. Part II is the kernel of the Bill and the competition authority could not operate in a vacuum without Part II. For example, they could not draw up rules and so on. The notifications, etc will have to be made to enable them to operate.

So far as existing agreements and concerted practices are concerned, under section 7 (2) businesses will have 12 months and not six months, as Deputy Barry seeks, to notify to the authority. This is a very generous transition period for them. Given the abuses we know exist, it would be wrong not to bring the provisions in sections 4 and 5 which prohibit these practices into effect now. I do not think these provisions will create undue difficulties simply because something is somewhat different or new. This can frighten people sometimes but it is not all that new and a great many Irish firms in the traded sector have already operated without any major problems under the system since 1973.

With regard to the suggestion made by Deputy Barry that the small corner shop could be caught and affected in a material way by the Bill, I cannot see how this would happen. Sections 4 and 5 refer to distortion of competition in trade in any goods and services. I cannot see how any corner shop could be involved in causing distortion in trade or directly or indirectly fixing a purchaser's selling price or any other trading conditions. What small corner shop would get involved in activities such as limiting or controlling production or markets, sharing markets or sources of supply? Deputy Barry's suggestion is not realistic. We are talking in the main here about major firms which are capable of coping with this Bill. As I said, they should have been complying with the guidelines set out therein anyway and if they have not been, the sooner they are brought to book the better. I would not support the idea of giving them an imprimator to carry on with their activities for a further six months from the time the Bill is belatedly brought in.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share