Vol. 449 No. 2
9 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the plans, if any, he has to change the thrust of the proposed competition Bill following the views expressed by him in a newspaper article (details supplied). [3347/95]
The policy agreement for Government provides for the strengthening of the competition law by giving the Competition Authority powers of enforcement and by enabling the courts to impose stiff fines on those found to be engaging in unfair competition.Providing for fines by the court meets the concern I expressed in the July 1994 newspaper article in relation to the Competition Authority having real teeth when is comes to enforcement.
The policy agreement also provides for the reconsideration of proposals contained in the Competition Bill, 1994 in relation to mergers and take-overs, in discussion with the social partners. As I indicated in July 1994, I am concerned at the 1994 proposals that permit take-overs of small and medium sized enterprises regardless of the circumstances.
I have started the consultation process with the social partners on the issue of mergers and take-overs. On completion of those consultations, final decisions will be taken by Government.
I am glad the Minister is not planning to make a U-turn; in other words, he is sticking to the views he expressed in a newspaper article last summer in which he singled out for attention the proposals relating to enforcement and also castigated the thrust of the Bill presented by the then Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn. May I take it that the Minister has embarked on a process of consultation and that the Competition Bill will not be referred to the committee until this process has been completed? Does the Minister intend to draft a new Bill?
I hope to introduce amendments to the existing Bill on committee rather than draft a new one. Consultation is necessary. I have been in contact with the Office of the Attorney General to seek advice on how we should draft the sections relating to the imposition of fines. I have also written to the social partners and am awaiting their submissions. One submission has been received. I am aware that there are different points of view within the social partners as to the impact of the proposed changes relating to the control of mergers. I will take careful account of the views expressed. Ultimately, this matter will be referred to the Government for a decision.
Is the Minister aware that the bizarre and daft notions which permeate the Bill and which he found most obnoxious were put forward by one of the social partners? Therefore I am alarmed when I hear him say that he intends to consult. If it presents the same submission for the inclusion of a section in the Bill will he meet its desires?
I am surprised the Deputy who is a former Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment is suggesting legislation introduced by the previous Government is the product of the efforts of any one lobbyist.
One section.
Under Government procedures, I understand that such matters are considered by the Cabinet which takes careful account of any views expressed. The previous Government came down on one side of the issue. As the Deputy correctly pointed out, I hold a different view. No one group or interest will take precedence over any other in my consideration of this issue.
Even though the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, did not speak he gave me an indication of what the Minister said on this issue.
On a point of order, I am disappointed that my question relating to ownership and control of the newspaper industry was ruled out of order. I regret this as it is a matter which should be thrashed out on the floor of the House.
Agreed. The Deputy has been muzzled.
I agree with the Deputy.
I would be happy to take the question; I did not realise it was ruled out of order.
I hope the Minister will do the right thing.
Which is what?
Competition.
