Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 8 Mar 2002

Vol. 550 No. 3

Competition Bill, 2001 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This upgrading of the legislation is desirable and will put in place something effective and consumer friendly. It will have real teeth and will adequately protect the consumer. I outlined the various areas where anti-competitive activity could have a major bearing on the quality of life of the business sector and I referred to electronic and print media etc. I pose the question again as to the degree to which monopolies exist here in those areas. To what extent will this new legislation be in a position to combat the development of monopolies which exist in both electronic and print media? There is a grave danger that we may become accustomed to thinking that they are induced by that type of development.

The global economy and multinational corporations have power far and above that vested in national governments. Will the forthcoming authority be effective in dealing with anti-competitive activities that may originate outside the State but could have a negative impact on the business sector within the State or the consumer? I posed these questions the last day and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us today that we are doing what was originally intended when the idea of competition legislation was introduced.

In Europe there is a considerable amount of competition legislation, some of which is effective and some of which is not put into operation. Some of it affects bodies or states of little influence and not the more powerful operators. I would like assurance that the authority will be capable of dealing with all eventualities and will have the resources required to do its job. I am particularly concerned about businesses that can be affected by predatory pricing and restrictive practices which could ultimately eliminate competition from the marketplace. That kind of competition can be beneficial to the consumer in the short-term but in the long-term it can be disastrous. An example of this is the availability of the corner shop or small grocer. The small business sector giving a service to the community, albeit perhaps at a higher price, provides competition. If these businesses are removed from the marketplace their competitors will be left with a monopoly. It is the oldest operational strategy in the world. I am not sure that the proposals in this legislation are capable of dealing with this.

As I also mentioned the last time we spoke about this, I am concerned about the growth of the quango, and it is necessary to repeat it today. I am concerned about quangos that are not accountable to the House. Every day we see the development, with the approval of this House and usually emanating from the Government, of some new organisation or body with powers which has no accountability to the House. They are barely accountable to the Minister. When the Minister is asked questions about these organisations in the House his reply is that he has no official responsibility for them.

Yesterday I heard an amazing statement by a civil servant that the Oireachtas had passed legislation. As we know in this House, the Oireachtas gives its approval. The Government proposes and disposes of the legislation and the Oireachtas merely debates it afterwards. Oppositions, as we know, do not have the power to overturn legislation except when it brings about a general election. The thinking behind these proposals is genuine, but I am not certain that it will be as effective as we would like. I will give it my ambivalent blessing.

I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words about this Bill, which I regard as enormously important for the economic future of this country. It receives little or no coverage because its significance is not understood and public interest in it is negligible. This is in contrast with attitudes in the EU and in other member states, particularly with the interest taken in these matters in the USA where they see that the proper regulation of competition is vital to the economic well-being of the country. This Bill consolidates the existing legislation with quite a number of amendments with which, by and large, I agree. There are two main Acts in force here, both of which I introduced, the Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies (Control) Act, 1978, and the Competition Act, 1991. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that both of those Acts have defects, especially the 1991 Act. I recognised some of the mistakes and inadequacies at the time but I could get nothing better through. The reason was that at that time, and to a lesser extent at present, there was no public acceptance of the need for competition regulation.

Activities have gone on here over several decades which were wrong and for which in other countries the perpetrators would have been imprisoned. However, here most people cannot see that anything is wrong. Some of these concerted practices and abuses of dominant position were so blatant, and at the same time so accepted, that they were carried out by semi-State bodies. When one or two lone voices, such as mine, raised queries about them we were looked at askance, as though we were cranks seeing crimes where no crime existed. It was assumed that a semi-State body had every entitlement to abuse its dominant position. I remember drawing attention to some of the activities of Aer Lingus for which the company was fined a substantial sum by the Commission and saying that those who ran Aer Lingus would not only have received a fine if this had taken place in the USA, but would also have been sent to prison for quite a lengthy period. The reaction to that statement was one of laughter.

Aer Lingus has been dragged into the real world by competition but there are others who have not and they continue to abuse their dominant positions. A good example of this is the ESB. It produces a monthly newsletter or magazine, ostensibly for its staff, called Electrical Mail, of which the main part is a justification of the extraordinarily backward-looking policies the board feels entitled to pursue, to the detriment of the people.

There are many examples one can give of the value of competition, but the one I always use, because it is the clearest, is the example of airlines. The Minister for Transport introduced a Bill into this House in 1984 called the Air Transport Bill, 1984, which made it a criminal offence to compete in any way in relation to the sale of airline tickets. Any form of discount on the Aer Lingus, British Airways and Department cartel fare proposed by a travel agent or by a competing airline would have been a criminal offence. It was punishable by a fine of £100,000 and-or three years imprisonment. A serious attempt was made to get that Bill through this House.

When I opposed the Bill – I was on my own in opposing it as I had the good fortune at that time to be an Independent in this House – I was derided as some sort of deranged person who wanted to introduce a curious, anomalous thing called competition. Members were asked to accept – the majority of them did so – that the health of the balance sheet of a State company, owned entirely by the taxpayers of the country, was more important than the health of the economy. That was a ridiculous proposition but it was accepted in the House and throughout the country as being good sense.

Within two years of the introduction for the first time of competition between airlines, against the opposition of the Department and Aer Lingus, there were two million extra people coming to this country. We have more than trebled the number of tourists visiting because they can now get access to this country at reasonable cost. Air transport in Ireland is now looked on as a right for everybody, not just for the relatively rich, as it was then. It is extraordinary that the minimum fare between Dublin and London at that time was £208, decided by the State cartel of British Airways and Aer Lingus with the approval and connivance of the Department of Transport. Today, one can travel from Dublin to London for perhaps £20, sometimes even less. The minimum fare at that time from Shannon or Cork to London was £240. Today one can travel for £20 or £25 and sometimes even less.

Can anyone seriously suggest that to introduce competition at that time was wrong? Can anyone suggest that the defeat or heavy amendment of that Bill in 1984, taking out those clauses, was wrong? Should we still labour in a situation where a company that charged £207 for an ordinary flight to London would be fined £100,000 or get three years in jail? If that is so, Ryanair and its equals would face perhaps 50 years in jail for the temerity that they have in charging low fares today. The face of aviation in Europe has been changed by an Irish company that overcame these difficulties, and there are so many other areas where this can be done also for the benefit of the people, their economy and employment. However, we are very slow in undertaking that.

The great defect of the 1991 Act – I recognised it at the time – was that it did not contain any means to impose criminal sanctions. I was innocent, naive and hopeful enough to think that it could be enforced by civil means, but that proved incorrect. Competition law can only be adequately enforced if it is done by a public regulatory authority, such as the Competition Authority or the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It cannot be done 99% of the time by injured or damaged parties because of their nature – they are too small and they tend to be damaged by parties that are extremely big. As a result, they never take them on.

The example in the immediate aftermath of the 1991 Act was that of small suppliers trying to supply the likes of Dunnes Stores and whatever Tesco was then called. No small supplier would take on Dunnes Stores as the company would simply blacklist the supplier and it would go out of business. I was wrong and the legislation was unrealistic, but I had a feeling that I was wrong at that time. I wanted to bring in criminal sanctions but I could not get the Cabinet to agree and, even if it had, I do not think I would have got the House to agree. That is because the House, like the public, could not see anything wrong with the abuse of a dominant position or in companies engaging in concerted practices to the detriment of the consumer.

To a fair extent, that is still the case. It is a strange coincidence that in many towns in Ireland it happens that every publican on a particular morning wakes up and says, "I will increase the price of the pint by 3p". As one publican thinks that beautiful thought, every one of the other 90 publicans in the same town thinks the same beautiful thought. They all implement it and it is a pure coincidence. We have seen this many times. In other countries, one would be jailed for doing a thing like that, but here it is called a stroke and is supposed to be commendable.

Numerous practices of this kind continue, with the concrete industry being one that should be particularly looked into, from what I am told. I believe that the authorities have been slow to do that, for some reason.

The area where concentration of ownership is probably most dangerous is that of media ownership. This Bill contains provisions for changing the arrangements that exist in section 3 or 4 of the 1978 Act in relation to media ownership. I have no objection to changing those arrangements so long as the fundamental principle remains the same. I hope that is the case although it is a bit difficult to follow what exactly is proposed here.

The 1978 Act was simple and clear and it meant that in any sector of economic activity where the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the day thought that there was a special sensitivity about the concentration of ownership, he was entitled to make an order whereby the various thresholds did not apply. Therefore, any merger or take-over in such a sensitive sector would have to be notified to him and he would have to consent to it no matter how small the assets or the turnover involved. It was necessary to do that at that time because one man, who was then Mr. Anthony O'Reilly, owned 16 newspapers in this country. I thought that was enough and that he should not own any more. I put that section in the 1978 Act and as soon as it was passed, I made an order which is still in existence and which has worked very well. He has not been able to increase the number of newspapers he has taken over here. I understand he owns two new newspapers but they started up subsequently and, of course, the order did not apply to them. He has also acquired considerable media interests in relation to local television and the distribution of television, but I think that was outside the ken of the 1978 Act. As far as I can see, it is covered in this Bill, which I welcome.

It is, however, vitally important that the Minister of the day has proper control over that situation. If that section had not been included in the 1978 Act and if the order I made the day after its passing had not been made and enforced ever since, there would probably be only one owner of newspapers in this country today. I understand the same gentleman has frequently loudly criticised me both in private and in public for having made that order so I fully realise the order was efficacious and desirable and I am glad it was made. This Bill should not weaken the position in relation to that and I hope it does not.

I note from the Bill that the Minister gives over a lot of her powers to the Competition Authority, and I see why, but there should be some kind of residual reservation of powers to the Minister because, in the last resort, the Minister is responsible for competition policy and for the economic well-being of this country which is so dependent on competition policy and its enforcement. If I were the Minister, I would not give up all my powers. There is a reservation of some of the powers but she should consider perhaps more extensive reservation.

I would like to take part in Committee Stage of this Bill but a nominal hour or two will be devoted to it at a committee of which I am not a member. There will be no real discussion of it in this House and that is a pity because we had a useful discussion in 1978 and 1991 and it helped to clarify a lot of matters. However, with the dissolution of this Dáil being imminent, it is eminently desirable that this Bill pass and that the various provisions contained in it become law.

On reading the explanatory memorandum, I see that a very high proportion of the recommendations of the review body which sat on this matter, the Competition and Mergers Review Group, have been implemented and I welcome that because there are a lot of review groups of that kind which have laboured in the wilderness for years and produced good reports which never really saw the light of legislative day. In this case, the recommendations are being implemented in legislation to a great extent. However, when I went through its various recommendations, I got the feeling that a lot of the recommendations were there for the convenience of practitioners perhaps and that at times they may lose sight of the fundamental economic necessities. A competition law is not an end in itself, it is purely the means to enforce broader economic policy, and sight should not be lost of that fact. There are now people who are specialists in competition law but they are there only to serve to the broader cause, the more fundamental and important cause. The convenience of practitioners and their clients should not be a paramount consideration.

One of the weaknesses of the 1978 Act was that if somebody did not comply with it, there were very limited sanctions and limited consequences for non-compliance. Indeed, if someone ignored it completely, it was possible, in certain circumstances, to get away with that. I was recently reminded of that by a case which was widely reported in the newspapers, a case which never reached a conclusion because it was settled between the parties after it had been at hearing for, I think, 40 or 50 days. That case arose out of the Master Meats merger or take-over. It is now clear – it is no longer a question of opinion – that lies were told to the Department of Industry and Commerce at the time and to the Fair Trade Commission which I asked to investigate the matter and which was the predecessor, in a sense, of the Competition Authority. The person who told the lies admitted telling them. He said he was only admitting it was a lie for the purpose of the case which was going on recently. How it can be a lie one day and not the next I am not quite sure but I could not follow that man's reasoning in any event.

Your 20 minutes is concluded.

I am very sorry to hear that. I do not think the House is exactly coming down with people offering to speak.

Deputy Crawford is waiting patiently and there is a time limit on the debate.

I see. It is a pity I do not have the opportunity to deal with the Master Meats situation and the fact that the party who took over the group of companies concerned did not comply with the law and just thumbed his nose at it. It was impossible apparently for me or for any of my successors in that Department to do anything about it. As far as I can see, there is provision in this Bill whereby something can be done. There will be sanctions and I hope they will be retrospective in that respect.

There are many more things I would like to say about this Bill which I regard as hugely important and I regret that I do not have the opportunity. I hope the Bill will pass before this House is dissolved and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it in because it will make a major contribution to the economic well-being of this country in the future.

Like Deputy O'Malley, I welcome this Bill but I also decry the fact that it is being rushed through and that there will be limited time for Committee Stage. This is the end of a five year term and there were opportunities on previous occasions to bring it in, if there was commitment by the Minister and others to do that, and to give plenty of time to discuss it. It is very strange that the first point I was going to make was the one on which Deputy O'Malley finished, that is, the meat trade. The meat trade is an example of where competition raises more questions than gives answers. Deputy O'Malley said that publicans can find a way on the same day to up the price of a pint of stout, a glass of whiskey or whatever. Something similar exists in the meat trade. Regardless of what markets factories are involved in, they seem to be able to find a common price to give to farmers, and it is certainly not at a high level. There is a monopoly in the trade of dead meat. Although a relatively high price exists for Irish meat in Britain, the price paid by factories is decreasing. Last week, by admission of the farm organisations, farmers were not asking what price they could get for their cattle, rather they asked when their cattle could be killed. Those running the monopolies have effectively told farmers that they will have to live with the conditions they lay down and that nothing can be done about it.

It is in light of this that I tried to question the Taoiseach yesterday about the Government's emphasis on the live trade and the whole issue of competition. When the Taoiseach and the Ministers, Deputy Walsh and Deputy Cowen, were on the Opposition benches just five years ago, they had all the answers. BSE was a problem at that time, let nobody say it was not, yet they said it was due to the failure of the then Government that all the live markets were not opened. If we are serious about competition – that is what Government is all about – we must make sure that every opportunity is afforded to those who want to be involved in primary production or primary purchase.

We must look at the monopolies and question how the rules were dealt with. I hope this Bill will deal with the anomalies and difficulties that have existed in Departments over many years. Whenever meat factories were in trouble in the past, it seemed very strange that Larry Goodman was able to be there at the right time and place to buy them. Many years afterwards this House had to be recalled to stop that entire industry descending into chaos. This House had to take decisions to allow Mr. Goodman, trading as AIBP, continue in business. Maybe if questions had been dealt with in a proper way in the past, as Deputy O'Malley said, that crisis would not have occurred. I say this with some knowledge because I was a board member in the Cork Marts IMP group. I remember when the group got into some difficulties with the trade unions, it was said it was not able to compete because of the mismanagement of the farmers' organisations. There was no way we could prove otherwise because there was no independent or open-ended information about our opposition to establish if they were competing fairly.

We have heard about shelf companies in this House in the past 24 hours and how a shelf company has been involved in the Taoiseach's pet project, the "Bertie bowl". I remember that Cork Marts IMP was forced to sell its meat plants in Leixlip and Grand Canal Street. Even today people find it difficult to establish who actually bought those companies. Company names that we had not heard of before came from nowhere and bought these companies. I and those involved with me had no doubt that it was those in the meat industry who bought those plants to ensure that there would not be competition. It can be called mergers, underhand dealing or anything else, but the reality is that those plants were bought at rock bottom prices. Farmers' co-ops around the country were lambasted as being inefficient, unable to compete and incapable of doing business. Yet we were dealing with the same market where intervention was one of the mainstays and there was no question about the price many were getting for their cattle. Good people were put out of the industry.

Only last night in this House, a former Minister of State questioned the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development about his activities. I remind people that that Minister, as a Minister of State in the former Department of Agriculture and Food, was involved with Larry Goodman and the then Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, in the launch of a so-called major industrial breakthrough in the form of a £2.5 million meat project. Nobody in the finance industry could advise me or knew anything about it when I made inquiries at the time. There are links and I make no apologies for bringing them up today. We need transparency and to be clear about who is involved in the purchase of companies, whether it is Larry Goodman, Tony O'Reilly or anybody else. I hope this Bill has sufficient powers to ensure that.

I have named Larry Goodman and I want to make it very clear that I have worked very closely with him and have nothing against him personally. Good luck to him if he has used the system. There must be major question marks over those who were in power at different times and in a different element of his industry that allowed the things that happened. Those things put a lot of pressure on the co-operative movement and those who had made efforts to create new wealth and structures. I think of the boning halls in particular in that young people's lives were committed to a new era in the meat industry. They did their best but found themselves overpowered by the great and the good. I hope the food industry can enter a new era.

There is need for competition in the media. At local level we can see that local newspapers and radio stations who are independent of the major groups give a tremendous and unbiased service. The public are increasingly using those media. A Member will seldom hear it remarked that he or she was heard speak on national radio, but if one says something on local radio it will be remarked on by everyone. I hope that nothing will ever happen to the local radio stations and media to stop that. It is frightening that one man and one group can control the national media. I say that with some degree of trepidation because I know the power that some of those have. I remember the editorial of a newspaper being moved to the front page of a newspaper a few days before the last general election. That illustrates how far some people were prepared to use their power in the media to ensure that their personal, business or other interests were served. The new Competition Authority has a major role to play in ensuring that such behaviour does not occur and that transparency and democracy are allowed to function.

I welcome without apology competition in other areas. Deputy O'Malley referred to monopolies in the past. One such was Roadstone, a very good company, but in my area we discovered that once the Border was opened thanks to the EU, the price of tar and stone chips, for example, fell dramatically. We could get it at a lower price in the Border region than in Wexford, Cork or elsewhere. Unfortunately no Government, of whatever hue, gave us the money to match that. If we had received an increase in Government money, we could have really benefited from lower prices. I am dismayed that at the present time when we are supposed to be benefiting from the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process generally, we are blocked from the advantages of competition because of the difficulties in this region.

The Government, through the NRA which is an independent body, is responsible for this. I worry about all independent bodies, including the NRA and the Competition Authority, which are answerable to no one. Despite the fact that the Border area is in the BMW region, designated by Brussels for special assistance, the NRA has not spent one brass farthing or euro – whatever one chooses to call it – on any of the by-passes on the major route that links the fourth biggest city on the island, Derry, with Dublin and would allow competition north and south of the Border. This is the time when we could benefit from progress, but we are not doing so.

Deputy Durkan referred to competition in respect of supermarkets and small corner shops. I do not object to supermarkets which have opened up many areas and give a good service, but there must be an even playing field. First, I admit that I am a dairy farmer, should anyone question my motives, and supply liquid milk to the County Monaghan co-op, which has the best milk in the country. However, when that co-operative's milk is put in a supermarket, it is often sold as a loss leader. That milk cost much in feed, work and production, yet a bottle of water that comes out of the ground at minimal cost, is sold at a high price by the supermarket.

I raise this issue in the context of small corner shops which are being squeezed out and receive no help from the Government. The often elderly people who run these shops cannot receive family income support as employees can. Like farmers' accounts their accounts are trusted, or mistrusted to be more accurate, and so they do not receive the little help that might enable them to stay in business and provide a local service. Competition is important but people must be protected.

Another issue is that of competition in the banking sector. The National Irish Bank is owned by Australians, the Ulster Bank by Scots and the AIB by someone in the United States, or at least his share dealings have influenced it in recent months. It is credit unions, on the other hand, owned by the local people which give a real service to customers. Monopolies do not necessarily give the best service.

Commissioner Sutherland led the way in opening up the EU to competition. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, when I first went, it was extremely expensive to travel to Brussels, but that has changed dramatically thanks to his reforms which resulted in airlines genuinely competing. This has been of great benefit to industry and tourism in this country because people can travel here cheaply. However, internal travel would also benefit from competition. Independent operators find it hard to get licences for routes on which CIE has a monopoly. Likewise, in electricity generation, ESB's dominance is a problem. Again, it was the EU which insisted that this end, but we have a long way to go before we have real competition in these areas.

This Bill has much to offer. The Tánaiste has been the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment for over five years. She began with high ideals and hopes, promising inquiries and investigations. As I said before, however, I am disappointed that the Bill will not be debated properly but is being rushed through in the dying days of the Government. After five years, there is only a smoke screen covering the activities of those inquiries when we want answers. About 18 months ago, we heard rumours. However, these create problems rather than solve them. I would like to see, in the last few weeks of the Dáil, openness, transparency and accountability from the Tánaiste. She must show us that this Bill will work and that she is serious about it delivering.

As someone deeply involved in the co-operative sector, I say that big is not always beautiful. I am a shareholder in a small County Monaghan co-operative. Despite what was said in recent decades about only the big surviving in Europe, this small, efficiently and properly run co-op, like others, survives and there is a place for it.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, particularly on section 22. I know my good friend and colleague, Deputy Crawford, will forgive me if I say that I profoundly disagree with much of his concluding summary. By way of beginning, as I must use my time economically, I say that I do not subscribe to the view that Commissioner Sutherland ushered in a golden era in Europe or in multilateral trade, for reasons about which I can be specific. I read the Tánaiste's speech and the debate so far. It appears there are a number of assumptions at its base, some of which we will leave aside for an occasion when we have much more time. To put it mildly, it is based on the assumption that perfect competition is attainable and that we have true markets, as it were. It also assumes the benefit of consumers is met almost exclusively by the elimination of inefficiencies in competition and, therefore, everybody will be better off if we proceed along this exceedingly narrow furrow.

Where it fails dramatically and significantly is in connecting the case for a Competition Authority to the wider society. When it comes to section 22 in relation to the media, it is unable to accept that work in a newspaper, radio, television or any other audio-visual or new technological usage is at once a cultural expression and is only partially a commodity. Yet it is precisely because it regards it as a commodity that it excludes the colleague Minister, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, almost completely from the Bill. I might say in relation to that matter which is reserved from the Competition Authority, on which the Minister will give an opinion, that there is not any requirement for consultation that would take account of the cultural significance of media work.

One would imagine Members on the opposite side of the House would be able to remember the centrality of such an argument rather easily. One need only examine the sad, sorry and sordid history of the Irish Press in its last days and the way the livelihood of journalists and people who worked in a paper that had moved out from the spancel of a single vision to being a fine news paper with features was destroyed near the end by a set of management decisions and manipulations in relation to financing. Was it not important that the Irish Press was to be no more? There is more involved than just the movement of the shares and who owned what or whatever. I am in favour of openness, transparency and accountability but I do not want to be told that we are on some automatic curve that will systematically handle questions such as concentration in ownership.

I will make another point as we approach St. Patrick's Day when people will scatter themselves across the diaspora. The backbench group of the Tory party produced a document on cross-ownership and upper limits on ownership. It was explicit in what it wanted. Its members were not raving "pinkos", as the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, might see it. They were backbench Tories and they said there should be an upper limit on what anyone in one branch of the media should own, and strict limits in relation to cross-ownership. I produced a Bill in that regard in this House. It was voted down.

Is the Minister of State, who is a very affable man when he goes to the WTO talks and events like that, not disturbed that we are now entering a phase where the community of broadcasters in Europe, represented by the European Broadcasting Union, can be bid out of sporting rights by corporations like the Kirsch Corporation which can in turn be taken over by Rupert Murdoch's companies? The net effect of that is that the rights are then put on the market and the person who can pay the most will have exclusive rights to show soccer matches, the World Cup, which was probably the most dramatic bid, the Olympics and so on.

The European Broadcasting Union worked on the basis that citizens in Europe were entitled to watch certain events on the basis that they were European citizens, and the charge made by the European Broadcasting Union was in relation to capacity to pay. That is entirely gone. The EBU is on its last legs, but what is very interesting is that there has not been a jot of evidence in five years that the Minister responsible for competition talks to the Minister with responsibility for culture and broadcasting about these issues.

I was a Minister in this area and I recall the resistance I met from the Department with responsibility for competition, which appeared to be of the view that real men talk about competition and sissies talk about culture, even as it limited the right of readers in Ireland. It did nothing to include plurality in terms of editorial provision in the printing press here, as it does nothing in relation to radio and television. Its world is a "commodified" world, and I repeat my criticism of that great god, Peter Sutherland. His world was one in which commodities would move freely, but people did not move freely. He made his way, by a set of clever choices, through the European Union, the GATT and the World Trade Organisation and via Goldman Sachs, with a view of the world that the only feature it needs to usher in a better world was to remove the State's competition.

The good news coming from Europe was mentioned in the Minister of State's contribution, and is also referred to in the Bill, namely, that Commission Monti, who is responsible for competition, was asked more than once in the European Parliament by people across the board, a majority of European Union parliamentarians, to do something about the concentration of ownership that was emerging in the European Union. I was one of the culture Ministers who attended all the meetings of the Council of culture Ministers. The Commissioner with responsibility for culture was urged by the Ministers to put pressure on Commissioner Monti and on the President of the Commission to implement the European Parliament decision on monopoly of ownership in the media. In the end, Commissioner Monti said these matters are best left to the marketplace. He was supported in that by Jacques Delors.

I will explain what they meant for people who are interested. The right to have editorial diversity in society is a right of communication as a citizen, and a citizen is not simply a consumer. A citizen is in part a consumer, and competition can deal with some things that deal with one's life as a consumer, but one is entitled to read diverse opinions. One is entitled to watch films and not know that 97% of them are made in a tiny place on the planet called Santa Monica. One is entitled to have a variety of radio and television production, yet there is not a single line in the Bill as to how the Government proposes to deal with those features of monopoly that are sourced in satellite technology.

The competition regime is being breached every day by people who operate from a technology that is sourced outside of the jurisdiction. It is interesting to note also how much of this is being suggested as an inevitable and inescapable version of the future, that there is no other way and why would we interfere? It does matter and I will give an example in that regard.

I am one of the people who would have liked to have seen coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan from a fair perspective. I do not want to see narrow, isolated logos on my television set which read, "Fighting Back" or "War on Terror", for months on end, which is a flagrant violation of all good production values in features and in television news. It is rather like the days of the landlord. The landlords in Ireland, particularly when they lived abroad and got on with their notions of gentility and manners, were supposed to be people who could not possibly be involved with oppression of the peasants. The agents could do that.

The suggestion is that we move towards concentrations of ownership in the media. There is such a distinction in the difference between the owner and the senior editorial staff that there is no possibility of interference. I do not accept that. The evidence is there. I could easily provide evi dence of when particular events happen that nothing negative is portrayed while X is in town. That is all I will say on that matter in regard to one of the dominant groups in the Irish news media.

I said all that to bring these matters together to help the Minister of State to give a me reply on this matter. Will he tell me what matters should not be solely ruled by a competition regime, in other words, where there should be a right of entry and a diversity of opinion? Can he tell me how this Bill will enable the senior Minister to consult the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands on matters of media policy? Can he point to something that will ensure freedom of access to books, periodicals, radio and the media? Does he accept the EU directive? Does he accept the position in which the European Parliament has been ignored systematically by Commissioner Monti who has set his face against destroying State monopolies in the name of creating new totally unaccountable monopolies?

I will give the Minister of State another example. When he raised questions about our film industry on one or two occasions, which were answered adequately and proved to have been entirely legal, he did not raise the question of why it is impossible to purchase a film made and put into circulation commercially in the United States which has been a box office success without buying five others in a basket. It did not seem to concern him that there is no country in the European Union or among any of the six applicant countries where less than 95% of US films are watched?

Does the Minister of State realise that there is a great deal more to being in Ireland than being an Irish consumer? My story about the Irish Press and about the right to diversity in publication, print and broadcasting, the right to tell one's own story, the right to make music are all about being an Irish citizen. Everything that has come from Europe, everything that the former Commissioner Sutherland drove through Europe and everything that came out of the completed market was about being a European consumer. It was not about being a European citizen. People laugh at Eurocrats when they come out with this. Jacques Delors had two attacks of being a European citizen and wrote a few speeches on it. In the founding treaties of the European Union there is no reference to culture. Article 128.4 is the only reference in the Maastricht Treaty which states it should be taken into account. Does it matter then? I believe it does.

Poorer citizens in Europe are entitled to have free to air access to matters that are significantly European irrespective of their right to pay. Is this not then the problem facing the Minister of State? He is talking about legislation for the perfection of markets and is working hard in regard to our hang-ups. When the Minister of State goes to Geneva to the WTO talks, the same thing happens.

I pay credit to the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, who is interested in the initiatives being taken about the ILO. If he were to go from the ILO to the World Trade Organisation, which is only down the road, he would find there is not much interest regarding labour as a profoundly human activity or regarding the view that child labour is a disgrace, that multinationals who abuse it should be straightened out and action should be taken against them. He would be told that the WTO sees itself as something that regulates markets, apart from American production in relation to steel.

I find one aspect of the Bill rather vague and the Minister of State might be able to clarify it. In relation to some proposed mergers, the authority will offer an opinion and make a recommendation, but in regard to the procedure when the Minister makes an order, with whom does the Minister consult? The Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, have occasional differences of nuance, but the assumptions they have seem similar; they would like to give away the power altogether. In other words, one can give a technical body the authority to make a decision on a merger or to an approach towards monopoly. That would enable a Minister to say in this House that a certain matter has nothing to do with him or her.

I wish to finish on a matter that is important to me, the role of the regulator, which is not very advanced in the Bill. David Byrne, now a Commissioner, in a seminal address to the Law Society of University College Dublin some years ago on the role of the regulator in Europe and the United States looked at weak and strong models on the role of the regulator. It led to the fundamental assumption that what the Minister gives away is a policy envelope. The Minister gives a policy envelope to the regulator and the Minister remains accountable for that policy envelope in the same way as the Government and Ministers are responsible for citizens, as they are for the market. What is given to the regulator is a clear set of ministerial and Government decisions and, therefore, that is technical. That can be made open and transparent, but the worst of all worlds in the worst of regulatory regimes is where a Minister seeks the excuse of the existence of the technical authority to avoid political accountability. Unfortunately, that is the dangerous road down which we have been going.

We have not had a debate on competition, the matters that are not matters of competition, the matters of citizenship outside the market, the role of the regulator and particularly how the media and what is done in the media are not reducible to a commodity. It is only a Philistine outfit that would see it like that. It is rather like saying that art and culture matter much less than entertainment. Hucksters in the entertainment industry are the people who will be served by the competition regime. What is involved in relation to citizens living their lives fully requires much more. We should be looking at how the Irish Press came to be wrecked and its background, and we should not repeat the exercise.

I welcome the opportunity to make a few points about competition, the Competition Authority and the non-competitiveness route our country has gone in recent years. I do not agree with Deputy Higgins that the former Commissioner Sutherland was the cause of ensuring additional millions of people per year arrive here as a result of the deregulation of the airline industry. I heard Deputy O'Malley talk about what he did when he was Minister and what he proposed in relation to putting legislation through this House some years ago which helped in regard to that scenario. If the airlines that were providing the services were not able to compete, it meant there was a top heavy problem, and unfortunately that has been borne out as a result of the number of companies that have got into difficulties.

Monopolies are developing here at an alarming rate, but the Government has done little, if anything, in the past five years to address this trend. Some of the monopolies are State owned and others are privately owned. There is a monopoly in the ESB. It deals with the consumer as if his or her inquiry does not matter and is likely to respond to the effect that it will deal with the matter in six months, eight months or whenever a proposed development takes place. That position has developed because the Government had no imagination to put in place an alternative source of energy and to put forward proposals on that.

There are monopolies in the area of the production of cardboard. The Smurfit Group has become an international organisation. This is the beginning of a similar type situation with multinational waste disposal. What happens with these conglomerates is that one organisation produces all the packaging and repackaging while a second goes around the world and builds incinerators for which it charges substantial sums of money to get rid of the particular product being produced, half of which could be done without and half of which was done without in the past. At the end of the day, the consumer pays the price.

I would like to think when the housewives of Ireland or those members of families who go shopping arrive at the supermarket cash desk, they would remove all the cardboard not required and leave it with the multinationals and the supermarkets to be disposed of. This would mean much less waste going to the dumps and recycling centres and lower costs at the end of the day. Shoppers should vote with their feet when faced with these scenarios.

Reference has been made to monopolies in the media. Apart from Rupert Murdoch in Britain, one of the biggest monopolies here is the Independent Newspaper group which owns in region of 70% to 80% of the print media. It is unethical from a fair play point of view that this should be the case. It was interesting to note the newspaper headlines encouraging people to vote one way or the other within two days of the last general election. That was done because the then outgoing Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, refused to allow the group to purchase the press titles which would have given it another 10% of the titles of the print media in the country. There is nothing in the proposed Bill to say that an organisation, such as the Independent Newspaper group, should own such an amount of the print media. Neither is there any proposal to curtail its involvement. If it so wishes, it can go around the country and buy up other local newspapers. Some of these were sold recently and there is a possibility that more may be sold in the future. It is not fair that this should be the case. I object to the line adopted by this organisation, especially when one considers that its owner does not live in the country but wants to dictate the way things should happen. I listened to him on a few occasions at after-dinner speeches. All he is interested in is the bottom line and the profits, irrespective of the expense, and whichever Government will allow him to have a larger share of the titles.

I have been concerned for some time that CRH would have control of building materials and the roads infrastructure. Given that it has a monopoly, it is able to squeeze out the small competitor and this has happened on numerous occasions as a result of which there is no competition.

Fine Gael came up with the idea of establishing the National Roads Authority, a so-called independent roads authority although I often ask of whom is it independent. It proposes to build a motorway from Clonee to north of Kells on the N3. The NRA was asked whether the Government had an opinion on a public private partnership and whether there should be a dual carriageway or a motorway. The authority favoured dual carriageways which it set out to provide on three different occasions in County Meath but, lo and behold, it subsequently proposed that the carriageway be improved to motorway standard and be tolled. Given that there are four tolled roads leading into and out of County Meath, the county will have the highest number of tolled roads in Ireland.

Unlike Kildare and some other counties, there has not been any investment in dual carriageways in County Meath. Why should the National Roads Authority, supported by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Government, have a monopoly in relation to the provision of tolls? When the Minister was asked about this matter, about which he replied to Meath County Council no later than last Monday, he said, "I have no direct input into the policy of the National Roads Authority". However, that morning on the radio he claimed the good news about the moneys allocated by the National Roads Authority for investment in roads in the county. On the one hand, the Executive says there is bad news involving the National Roads Authority and that it has no say in the matter whereas if there is good news it wants to claim the credit. It is no wonder people are cynical about politicians.

As my colleague has stated there is no competition in the meat industry in which we have witnessed the operation of a monopoly in recent years. A small number of operators in the industry have always had a monopoly while in many cases those producing the product are not properly paid.

Given the controversy of the past week we cannot allow the occasion to pass without referring to another monopoly, the publicly owned semi-State company, An Post. God bless us. The taxpayers have provided it with substantial funds on a continual basis. The main party in Government has decided to put a slogan on the front of everyone's letters.

Including those of Fine Gael.

Yes, many do not want it. It is an abuse of Government power. I know by the way the Minister is reacting that he agrees with me.

The Deputy has used ten minutes of his time and I understand he may be sharing with Deputy Carey.

I am not sharing time. Deputy Carey will have ample time to follow on the line of protest in respect of the Government's abuse of the publicly owned companies which belong to the people. Is that not an abuse of competition? The people will make their judgment on that and many other issues in the not too distant future.

Another issue which arose during the week in relation to competition should be mentioned. It relates to a European competition which was put in place for the building of a €60 million swimming pool. A body was organised by another arm of the State to vet the different proposals for the project and it handed the contract out to a shelf company which has assets of £4 sterling. When the shelf company gets its hands on the contract it will sell off 95% of it. What are we doing? What will this Bill do to avoid recurrences of such problems in relation to taxpayers' money? It is unsatisfactory that the first contract to be awarded for the Abbotstown project, a major development which will cost £1 billion, stinks to high heaven and that the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation does not know what is going on. Why do we pay staff in his Department if they are not dotting the i's and crossing the t's on these issues? It is a matter of competition, having proper structures in place, encouraging fair play for taxpayers and giving better services and facilities to consumers.

My colleagues and others have raised a number of issues that are not dealt with in this Bill. We should continually challenge monopolies to ensure fairness for the ordinary people. The biggest monopoly of all is found in the media, where people with money can buy power and attempt to influence the way people should think and vote.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Competition Bill, 2001. The primary feature of the Bill is its attempt to tackle various problems in relation to competition. Deputy Michael Higgins mentioned the effects of the so-called monopoly in the media. On Second Stage of this Bill in the Seanad, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment dealt with the recommendations of the report of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry, chaired by Mr. Justice Thomas Finlay. The Competition and Mergers Review Group adopted the recommendations, which were based on "the special position of the media, including newspapers, as purveyors of information and opinion to the public and as organs of public opinion". The main role of newspapers is as pillars of democracy and journalists should be guarantors of democracy. In the rush for profit, however, they often neglect their fundamental role, as Deputy Higgins pointed out.

This morning's newspapers attempted to ameliorate the Government's position following its defeat in this week's referendum. The Irish Independent advocated the hare-brained notion of having another referendum, this time to legislate for the X case. The State has endured agonies to try to revise a decision taken a few years ago. The Taoiseach and the Ministers who supported the most recent endeavour deserve to be railed by the media, the pillar of the Constitution, but that did not happen today. The Minister, Deputy Harney, obviously feels she has got to grips with the matter in sections 15 and 22, but media interests do not behave in the manner she desires.

As Deputy Higgins said, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands does not seem to have been consulted on her role in relation to media competition, in so far as it exists. She made a great deal of her plans to provide for major sporting events to be free to air. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment told the Seanad that the Minister, Deputy de Valera, is consulting with sporting authorities to draw up a list of sporting events which should be free to air, but the latter Minister did not mention this when discussing delays and problems in this House some days ago. Why did she not inform the House? Deputy Higgins has spoken about problems with regard to the recognition of cultural assets, which needs to be enshrined in law, but has not been done in this Bill. I am disappointed that more action has not been taken to regulate this area and to impose greater responsibility on the media to act in a fair and competitive manner.

Similar issues are seen throughout society, for example in the use of a selective tendering system by local authorities. This does not mean open competition, but political competition at the higher echelons of business. Do we receive better quality service from builders and other service providers who tender for local authority infrastructural development contracts? I do not think so. A number of companies have collapsed while developing national primary routes, despite the fact that local authorities, presumably, used the special tendering system to choose them. If there had been a serious examination of the companies during the selection process, such events would have been avoided. Why does a company which has been chosen in a selective tendering system take three times longer to complete the same section of road than a similar company? I do not know if the Comptroller and Auditor General takes a jaundiced view of the matter, but perhaps he should examine the differences between work completed by private contractors and local authorities. A local authority's tradition of providing employment may mean that it takes years to complete a section of road that a contractor would finish in six months. This Bill does not seem to make provisions for local authorities or semi-State bodies.

Deputy O'Malley spoke earlier about Aer Lingus, which once refused to provide an air service between Shannon and Dublin. Aer Arann, a small company, stepped in to provide the service instead. This was so successful that Aer Lingus returned to the market, charging £79 return between Shannon and Dublin, compared to the previous price of £160. The success of Aer Arann meant that the price was then reduced even further, to £39 return. Naturally enough, consumers availed of the larger and slicker Aer Lingus service and Aer Arann had to retire from the market. Following Aer Lingus' most recent withdrawal, on the grounds that profits can be maximised by serving Malta, north Africa or similar exotic routes, it seems that Aer Arann will once more be the saviour of the service between Shannon and Dublin. Industry in the west of Ireland and early morning flights do not matter to Aer Lingus, but people in my region are resilient. They do not mind getting up early to travel to Dublin and spending 48 hours on their feet doing business. Although Aer Lingus has the ear of officials in the Department of Public Enterprise and the Minister's policy is to listen to Aer Lingus first, consumers have not benefited.

The Minister of State outlined that the new provisions in section 32 are based on the advice of the CMRG and will underpin and enhance existing levels of co-operation between the relevant bodies. What does that mean in the context of the carry on we have experienced from Aer Rianta, Aer Lingus and the ESB? I am aware of a case at Dublin Airport in which Aer Rianta used a spurious excuse called a red line to object to two local landowners developing a car park. I do not know how many questions I have tabled to the Minister about this red line which is supposed to mark a red zone surrounding the airport for the purposes of aircraft safety. However, Aer Rianta is able to move this line. When planning permission was denied, Aer Rianta and the large property company, Dunloe, bid for the same land and received planning permission for a car park. Aer Rianta put the screws on the two landowners. Is this not a case of Aer Rianta abusing its dominant position? The company's actions were a disgrace, but no one seems to care about the manner in which these people ride roughshod over others. The red zone is peculiar in that the Minister who is responsible for Aer Rianta does not seem to wish to take action to keep the company under control or to tackle it over its abuse of its dominant position.

The same is the case with Aer Lingus and the ESB. Deputy O'Malley referred to the ESB's company newspaper. This publication sometimes contains quality articles, but it sells the message of the company's dominant position. In the long run this position will cause difficulties, although it has not done so as regards the ESOP.

I wish to refer to the criticism surrounding the preparations for the budget. IBEC, that august body which represents major industry, launched a missile when it referred to the necessity for the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, to introduce a competitive budget. On budget day IBEC rushed to compliment the Minister, but forgot its edicts about competitiveness. The budget was inflationary, but not a word was said. IBEC is now waking up to the fact that there are competitive difficulties which were created by the Minister for Finance.

Worst of all is that when one asks a question of the Minister for Finance regarding competitiveness all one gets from the Department is waffle. I asked the Minister for Finance about the means by which he measures competitiveness. I asked him to cite a basket of goods which the Department uses to frame the budget and which would show how Irish people compare with others in the euro zone. However, I would be happy to show the House how intelligent people in the Department of Finance can produce the greatest waffle which any Member ever received by way of an answer.

It is unbelievable that financial people are ruled by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, who can get away with this stuff. What about competition? This is not on. I wish the Minister of State well. His heart is usually in the right place, but I do not know about the Minister, Deputy Harney.

I thank all Members who participated in this debate on the Competition Bill, 2001, and for signalling their intent to facilitate progress through the next Stages. It is good to see that there is broad support across the House for this Bill and the principles it seeks to implement.

The Bill is still open to improvement and a number of matters have been raised in this debate which are likely to lead to more detailed discussion on Committee Stage. We intend to give serious consideration to all the proposals.

It is fair to say that the criminal regime for competition offences, and the changes to it intro duced by this Bill, have attracted the most comment. In particular, concern was raised by several Deputies about the efficacy of the regime since its introduction in 1996 and, more fundamentally, the appropriateness of criminal sanctions for anti-competitive behaviour.

Criminal penalties were introduced by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 1996, to ensure that serious, anti-competitive behaviour could be dealt with effectively. Deputy Flanagan referred to introducing economic fines along the lines of those imposed by the European Commission. However, as the Deputy also noted, there is a constitutional impediment to imposing significant fines outside the criminal process. In other words, there is no way under our present constitutional arrangements to provide for a level of fines appropriate to the scale of damage caused by anti-competitive behaviour without making that behaviour criminal.

On a similar theme, Deputy Rabbitte pointed to the procedural and practical difficulties faced by the Competition Authority in prosecuting cases to date. As regards the former, the Bill goes some way to tackle these problems, for example with the introduction of the presumption in section 6(2). This has been described variously as draconian and inappropriate, and Deputies Flanagan and Perry raised concerns about its effect. However, as has been stated before by the Minister, the presumption in section 6(2) relates only to one part of the proof necessary to secure a conviction. It will still be necessary for the prosecution to prove, first, that there was an anti-competitive agreement in place, and, second, that the accused was a party to that agreement. It is only then that the presumption as to the object and effect of that agreement comes into play.

Moreover, section 43 was amended in the Seanad to extend the search powers of the authority with a view to enhancing their ability to secure convictions. This measure will not meet with universal approval and Deputy Perry rightly pointed to the need to maintain balance between the rights of individuals and the investigation of crime. These crimes are analogous to serious fraud offences and, in that light, it is appropriate to give the authority investigative tools similar to those recently given to the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

Deputy Rabbitte also referred to a number of individual cases which were investigated by the authority and referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I should point out to the House that the DPP and the authority are independent statutory authorities and it is for them to determine how they should carry out their statutory functions. The Minister has, however, requested our Department to pursue with the authority the type of difficulties which have arisen in the cases concerned and she hopes to be in a position to advise the House further on the matter on Committee Stage.

Aside from this Bill, the Competition Authority has received significantly increased resources over the past two years. In view of this it is hoped that the difficulties encountered in progressing civil and criminal cases, adverted to by Deputy Rabbitte, will be a thing of the past.

Another significant area of concern was Part 3 of the Bill which deals with merger control, about which some interesting points were raised. In particular, it is agreed that there is a need for special considerations for media mergers but there are differences of opinion as to how to legislate for those considerations. Deputy Rabbitte suggested a provision to restrict cross-media ownership within fixed limits, while Deputy Flanagan adverted to restricting the ministerial power to intervene to cases where the Competition Authority has first cleared the merger. The Minister sees merit in this latter proposal and she is disposed towards introducing an amendment along those lines.

While the idea of market share limits for media mergers has its attractions, I can see immense difficulties in formulating statutory provisions to give it effect. It would be necessary to define the relevant media markets, determine a maximum permitted share of those markets and to take account of changing circumstances in technology, markets and competition domestically and from abroad. The Bill proposes a flexible system permitting the exercise of judgment on a case by case basis, backed by full powers to block any media merger that is anti-competitive or offends the public interest in some other way.

Does the public interest include cultural diversity?

Yes. There was also much discussion about the proposed regime for non-media mergers and the abolition of any public interest test. It is true that the Competition and Mergers Review Group recommended the retention of public interest criteria but they have rarely, if ever, been invoked. Rather, competition criteria have formed the basis for decisions. Accordingly, there is little practical reason to retain them.

Deputies referred to the need for a strong consumer focus, both in this legislation and in the work of the Competition Authority. I dispute any contention that this Bill does not provide such a focus. If enacted, the Bill will enhance both the enforcement and the advocacy role of the authority. Together, these are important tools to secure one of the main aims of competition policy – to bring tangible benefits to consumers, such as lower prices and increased choice.

Deputy Flanagan made reference to the role of consumer bodies in highlighting anti-competitive practices. It is unnecessary, however, to give any statutory powers to organisations such as the Consumers Association to make complaints to the Competition Authority. It is open to any body, either in its own right or on behalf of members, to bring the matter to the attention of the authority.

Deputy Perry expressed the concern that normal trade representative association activities could be restricted under the Bill. The point of the Bill is to deter anti-competitive behaviour, whether by individual undertakings or by associations of undertakings. It is well established that anti-competitive agreements, such as collusion on prices, can take place through the medium of associations. Provided that associations steer clear of activities which are prohibited and penalised under the Bill, as is similarly the case under the present legislation, they have nothing to fear from this Bill. Some specific provisions in the Bill are of assistance in this regard. Section 28(1)(d), which was included by way of Senate amendment, empowers the Competition Authority to publish notices containing practical guidance as to how the provisions of the Act may be complied with. Section 4(3) empowers the authority to issue category declarations – statements that specified categories of agreements, decisions or concerted practices are compatible with section 4 of the Bill. These and other provisions of the Bill will enable the authority to be pro-active in offering guidance and advice to all sectors of the economy, including business organisations.

The definitive interpretation of any provision of the Bill, including those relating to the core concepts such as "restriction of competition" or "abuse of dominant position" will continue to be a matter for the courts.

Deputy Durkan raised the matter of accountability to the Oireachtas of bodies such as the authority. This Bill will increase accountability. As things stand, there is no such direct reporting between the authority and the Oireachtas but section 36 will oblige the chairperson to appear before the Public Accounts Committee, while the Tánaiste has given a further undertaking in the Seanad to introduce an amendment to require the authority to appear before the Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Clearly, these are substantial improvements in this area.

Deputy Durkan also referred to the Grocery Order. That will not be affected by this Bill. Deputy O'Malley referred to the lack of public interest in competition policy. The Bill will provide advocacy powers to the authority and will retain the same principle regarding media mergers as the 1978 Act. I acknowledge the Deputy's work in the past in this area. He also mentioned the meat industry, as did Deputy Crawford, and the enforcement of mergers provisions. Whatever deficiencies existed in the 1978 Act, there are clear enforcement powers in this Bill.

Deputy Michael Higgins covered a wide range of issues. It is because we realise that media mergers are different, and involve cultural as well as economic issues, that we have special provisions and criteria for such mergers. The concerns expressed by the Deputy are fully reflected in the Bill. He referred to the need for consultation with the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. I assure him that we will carry out such consultations. I thank the Deputy for his com ments on my role in the ILO. As the Minister of State with responsibility for labour, I find this to be a most important area of my work.

It must be very frustrating.

It is frustrating but we all come into this House to make a difference – the Deputy and I have both been involved in issues concerning human rights and the developing world. When the record of this Government's involvement at ILO level is examined, it will be seen that we made a difference. This has been a strong area for this State over the course successive Governments.

The Deputy has spoken on the development of the WTO on many occasions. If the work of the WTO in recent years, particularly at the Doha meeting, and the role of the EU Ministers are examined, the emphasis on the developing world will be clear. The environment is also near the top of the agenda. We did not succeed in getting what we wanted at the WTO ILO forum but that is unfinished business and we are nearly there. The EU and the Irish Government have made a difference by highlighting the needs of the developing world. We are all aware of what happened with regard to access to medicines and I hope the next Government will continue with that work.

Will the Minister of State support Commissioner Monti's position?

Yes. It should be remembered that this Bill provides a framework within which a great deal of activity will take place over the coming years. It does not, and cannot in itself, provide answers to the many detailed questions and situations that will arise. The Bill sets out rules and procedures, rights and obligations, which will be put into effect by the institutions concerned. Foremost among these will be the Competition Authority and the courts. Our job, as legislators, is to make sure that we get that framework right and I believe the Bill does that. There is a lot of technical detail in this Bill and it is important that we get that right too. As I have indicated, there will be some Government amendments for consideration on Committee Stage and no doubt there will be Opposition amendments as well. I thank Deputies once again for all their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share