Vol. 467 No. 5
5 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if he will give details of his recent meeting with the Chairman of the Competition Authority following his comments regarding the Competition (Amendment) Bill, 1994; his views on the concerns expressed by experts that the legislation will not be effective; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13732/96]
I met the chairman of the Competition Authority on 11 June 1996. Our meeting was an informal, cordial and private one. We discussed the draft Competition (Amendment) Bill, 1994, especially concerns which had been raised by a number of senior counsel about the workings of the Bill. I discussed the detailed legal advice available to me.
These matters were also raised in the Dáil and, at that time, I dealt comprehensively with them. Essentially, the matters raised concern the proposed new criminal provisions. The House should note that the Competition (Amendment) Bill, 1994 had been cleared by the Attorney General after careful consideration and additional legal advices on the concerns that had been raised were also received. A considerable amount of time was spent by the Attorney General and myself in reviewing and addressing these matters.
I previously informed the House of the following important advices received from the Attorney General's Office: that no authority could be found for the proposition that where an individual set of events gives rise to both civil and criminal liability, the civil claim falls to be determined on the same standard of proof as the criminal claim; that it is important to distinguish on the one hand between matters which are factually complex and which may involve uncertainties in practice and on the other hand the creation of an offence which is vague in its own terms.
These views are legally sound and robust. My views are supported by the views of eminent lawyers in regard to the efficacy of the Bill.
The Minister is aware that the chairman of the Competition Authority disagrees with the Minister's views on the efficacy of the Competition (Amendment) Bill. The Minister said that eminent lawyers are in favour of what he has done. However, many eminent lawyers at an open symposium offered the view that this Bill is most unwise and cannot be implemented. If I were to bet on the matter I would be inclined to bet with the person who is running the authority because he knows his business as he has been running it for some years. The Minister said the meeting was cordial. Did he persuade the chairman that he was right and the chairman was wrong?
I received the assurance that the chairman supports the enactment of the Bill and that he will operate the enforcement powers. It is significant that the chairman gave the interview before the Report Stage debate, in the course of which I introduced amendments to make the enforcement powers more effective. They also dealt comprehensively with some of the concerns that had been expressed by some lawyers. I was able to inform the chairman of considerable legal advices of which he was not aware at the time of the interview.
In other words, the Minister came the heavy with the chairman of the Competition Authority. That is not good practice.
The Deputy's attempts to read more into what I have said is mischievious. I did not come the heavy with the chairman of the Authority. I respect his independence but I brought to his attention the detailed work I and the office of the Attorney General had done on certain legal concerns that had been expressed. I am pleased that the chairman fully supports the enactment of this Bill——
He does not.
——and the introduction of proper enforcement powers to ensure that competition is taken seriously.
Unbelievable.
