Vol. 421 No. 4
19 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for the Environment if he will carry out an investigation into non-competitive practices in road material supply, as was recommended by the Director of Consumer Affairs; if his attention has been drawn to the discrepancy in prices between different regions in the country; if he will outline the cost comparisons between local authorities for road laying throughout the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Road material supplies are purchased by local authorities on foot of open competitive tenders. In the absence of evidence of collusion or anti-competitive practices, which would provide a basis for action under section 6 of the Competition Act, 1991, I do not propose to carry out an investigation in relation to such supplies, nor have I received a recommendation from the Director of Consumer Affairs that I should do so.
I am aware that the director received a complaint early in 1991 about anti-competitive practices in the supply and distribution of asphalt and had the complaint under investigation under the powers conferred on him by the Restrictive Practices Acts 1972 and 1987 until the end of September 1991, during which period, I understand, the director found no evidence that would substantiate the complaint.
On 1 October 1991, following the coming into operation of the main provisions of the Competition Act, 1991, and the repeal of the relevant provisions of the 1972 and 1987 Acts, the director advised the complainants that should they wish to pursue the complaint further it would be necessary for them to take a civil action on their own behalf. At the same time, the director advised my Department that it would be open to the Department to bring the matter further if there was evidence of collusion or anti-competitive practices in relation to prices. However, in view of the lack of such evidence emerging from the director's investigations over a period of several months and the lack of such evidence in the Department, the matter was not pursued.
The compilation of cost comparisons between local authorities for road laying throughout the country would involve an inordinate amount of staff time and cost which would not be warranted in the absence of any evidence of collusion or anti-competition practices in relation to prices in the area. However, if the Deputy has evidence in this regard I will be prepared to reconsider the matter.
I am somewhat disappointed at the Minister's reply. As he has available in his Department the information to clarify whether the same price is being paid for road materials by different local authorities across the country, I call upon him to do so. There is disquiet about this matter. In certain parts of the country there is evidence of collusion whereby high prices are being maintained, and the same prices do not apply across the country. I ask the Minister to carry out an investigation in his own Department to ensure that the taxpayer gets the best value for money.
The Deputy will be aware that in this regard there is a system of open, competitive tendering. Figures made available to me in recent months show a 10 per cent decrease this year in some tendering costs. I do admit that there are disparities between different parts of the country, which could in some way but not fully be explained by distance from the point of supply. If I find any evidence in support of the allegation made by the Deputy I shall be quick to take action.
