I thank the Deputy for his questions and will try to deal with them in order. The first question asked what we have done to promote competition. The director of our advocacy division, Mr. Declan Purcell, is with me. It is important to understand what the advocacy division does. It has a variety of different functions, but in terms of the public promotion of competition, it examines the areas in which there are restrictions on competition which may, or may not, be appropriate enforcement matters. For example, an important part of the output of the advocacy division has been a review of the entire professional services area, which is a critical part of the economy and a growing part of the wealth the economy produces.
We think it is extremely important that these professions are looked at together, because too often professions look at themselves and convince themselves that particular restrictions or regulations make sense in their own context. Having looked at a number of professions across the sector, we see that some are doing much better than others. Those sectors where there is independent regulation and few barriers to entry have performed much better and offer better services than those with greater restrictions. This is an example of where we have worked hard to promote competition. Other issues arise from time to time that fall outside our enforcement remit, but we comment on them. We always try to promote the interest of the consumer, which is our strong remit.
We see our advocacy division as the important public face of the authority, but complementary to our enforcement work. The enforcement work gives us credibility in areas such as the home heating oil case or the Ford motor dealer case, where we can point to consumer harm. This is the same message we promote with our advocacy function. Advocacy has been and remains an important priority for us and an important part of our message.
The Deputy mentioned our ability to investigate cartels and asked what the trigger factors were that might lead to an investigation. I must emphasise that enforcement matters are intensely factually driven; we need evidence. We need evidence which gives us the basis to start an investigation to compile a file and then ultimately to produce a file for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Everything depends on the evidence that we can obtain. Simple allegations, simple unsubstantiated statements, hints, innuendoes or opinions are simply not sufficient. One of our primary goals in our outreach programme is to inform people about the work we do, of the seriousness of these crimes, and to encourage the public to come forward to us. Any enforcement agency in this area is very much dependent upon the public, on outsiders coming forward to us. It is based entirely on the evidence that comes before us. We cannot wake up one morning and decide: "That looks like an interesting sector. Let's investigate it." Before we would use our formal powers, we would need to have a very strong basis for finding that there are some very serious offences taking place so it is entirely factually driven.
On the issue of Premier Foods and Erin Foods and the Thurles plant, the Deputy referred to page 11 of our decision where we market tested the remedies. By way of explanation, I will take one step back. The Competition Authority is a statutory body. We look at mergers, we do enforcement, we do everything through our own statute and with regard to our remit. In the area of mergers, it is very clear we are there to look at the competition issues that arise, to look at competition concerns. Where competition concerns arise in the context of a merger, where they need to be addressed and there is a need for a remedy, we fashion a remedy as narrowly as possible. We have no desire to put an undue burden on business or to impose any conditions other than those that are indispensable to what we regard as achieving our statutory remit.
In the market testing of the remedies in the Premier Foods and Erin Foods matter, our primary objective — it was the only objective we could have — was to preserve competition in the market, to preserve the viability on the Erin brand following divestment. According to our investigations, the best way to preserve that viability was to have divestment of the entire brand, that it was not viable to divest only a portion of the brand. Having found a buyer for the Erin brands, that buyer was then willing to lease back to Premier the soup portion of the Erin brands, thereby addressing our concern that was in the gravy market, preserving competition in the market for gravies and preserving the viability of the Erin brand without putting any other undue burdens on the parties.
We have no statutory remit to fashion a remedy to protect the jobs in the Thurles plant. It is not part of our statutory remit. We always stay within our statutory remit because, as anyone who has been a regulator in this country knows, that is the only way one can possibly operate here. In that case, we looked at the competition concerns and I believe we addressed them in a responsible manner. Our remedies are consistent with best international practice. We note also that Premier Group and other groups in the food sector have been undergoing a rationalisation programme which even predates their decision to make an acquisition here. Premier will continue to make the soups but, as we understand it, not from the Thurles plant. Batchelor will make the gravies, but, again, not from the Thurles plant.
The Deputy asked about our investigation into the Irish Pharmaceutical Union. By way of a caveat, I wish to state that in terms of ongoing investigations, the Competition Authority does not and cannot comment. I want to make one point clear. What the Deputy said was true in a sense. Perhaps by the coincidence of the timing of our enforcement actions — those actions were not made public by us but by others — it appears that we are a player in this dispute. I assure the Deputy that we are not a player in this dispute. The actions we take regarding any investigation are actions we take entirely on our own on the basis of our judgment and particularly in cases where there may be entities that are effectively publicly stating that they may organise collective action. There is no other source of information required. In this example we do not act at the behest of the HSE. All of our decisions are independent in that regard.
I was asked about our priorities. I may have touched upon that in my opening statement. The promotion of competition, our advocacy function will continue to be a very important public function. It is very important because for me I see advocacy and enforcement as a seamless web. We do not want restrictions on competition by private parties, whether it is a cartel or by professional associations, whether it is a restriction on entry or other barriers to entry. Our message is most powerful when we have both an advocacy function and an enforcement function. Both of them are very strong priorities for us.
