Cement (Repeal of Enactments) Bill, 1999: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Treacy):

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Cement Acts, 1933 to 1962. At present, the principal provision is that legislation requires that any person proposing to manufacture cement may do so only in accordance with a licence issued by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. During the passage of the Bill through Seanad Éireann, the Minister, Deputy Harney, made it clear that the Government considers the continuation of such a licensing regime unnecessary in current circumstances.

This Bill is a short, straightforward measure consisting of only two sections. Section 1 provides for the repeal of the Cement Acts, 1933 to 1962. Section 2 outlines the Short Title and provides for the ommencement of the Act. The original legislation has been largely unused for over 20 years; therefore, the purpose of this Bill is to remove redundant legislation from the Statute Book.

The principal provision still remaining in the Cement Acts, 1933 to 1962, is that a company must obtain a licence from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if it wishes to manufacture cement in this State. The Cement Act, 1933, gave the then Minister for Industry and Commerce control over the manufacture of cement, namely, who manufactured it and where and how it was done. In addition, the Act provided for the compulsory acquisition of land for the development of cement factories and regulated the construction, maintenance and operation of transport for the purposes of the manufacture and importation of cement.

The cement legislation was brought forward by the late Seán Lemass in the 1930s to facilitate the development of an indigenous cement industry and has been successful in achieving this aim. The establishment of the first cement manufacturing facility addressed a strategic requirement for the development of the national economy and provided much needed employment throughout the country. The cement plants developed as a consequence of the enactment of this legislation were among the largest industrial developments ever built in this State.

The Cement Acts provided a protective cocoon which enabled the licensee to invest the significant capital required for the erection of cement works with the assurance that this investment would be protected against unreasonable compe tition, whether from outside or inside the State. The legislation achieved its objective by establishing an indigenous manufacturing base for the production of cement.

During the passage of this Bill through the Seanad a number of issues were raised concerning the activities of the sole licensee. Only one company, Irish Cement Limited, was granted a licence to manufacture cement. The original licence was granted in 1936 and is currently held by Cement Roadstone Holdings. The Minister made it clear in the Seanad that she would look into certain matters raised in the debate and inquiries are still being pursued in that regard. However, allegations of unfair competition and possible breaches of company law are not directly relevant to this Bill. I am stating this to ensure that it is clearly understood that there is no hidden agenda involved in the repeal of the cement legislation.

This legislation has been amended twice since its enactment. In 1938 and 1962 the original Act was amended with consequential changes in the framework of the statute. The most significant amendment was made in 1962 when those provisions relating to the control of the importation of cement were repealed. That amendment was made in anticipation of Ireland's entry to the EEC, or the Common Market as it was properly known.

Further changes to the legislation were considered a decade later in the context of Ireland's accession to the EEC. The power to issue licences was reckoned to be in accord with the Treaty of Rome provided that licences were issued on a non-discriminatory basis, irrespective of the nationality of the applicants. Accordingly, no further amendment was made to the legislation at that time.

In September 1999, the Government decided that the continued existence of a licensing regime for the manufacture of cement originating in the era of protection was no longer necessary in current economic circumstances. During the debate in the Seanad concern was expressed by some Senators that the repeal of the cement legislation might create a regulatory vacuum. There was a particular concern about the environmental impact of cement manufacturing.

The regulatory standards which apply today, whether in relation to health and safety conditions in the industry or the planning and environmental implications of planned construction, emissions and the transport operations associated with the manufacture of cement, are all radically different from the regime instituted under the Cement Acts. The operation of a plant for the production of cement requires an integrated pollution control licence under the Environmental Protection Agency Act. All such plants must comply with the agency's guidelines on various issues, including noise, dust, air emissions and water. A far wider and more effective range of planning and protective measures is now in place to cover cement manufacturing than was envisaged in the licensing provisions which apply under the Cement Acts.

In the past, the relatively small size of the cement market and the fact that the sole cement manufacturer in this State was capable of catering for the market, may have proved a major factor in the retention of the Cement Acts. Their removal from the Statute Book serves as a signal of the Government's commitment to improving competitiveness and eschewing unnecessary regulation. At present, at least two new investors have already advanced proposals to establish cement manufacturing plants at various locations in the State. In so far as this Bill does away with the licensing requirement for cement manufacturing, it will be of benefit to those investors also.

The emergence of new cement manufacturing companies will, I expect, make for a more competitive market throughout Ireland. In such circumstances, individual manufacturers will need to increase their competitiveness and explore opportunities for export. The move towards a more competitive market will be driven by market forces and should no longer be inhibited by unnecessary regulatory controls.

I request Dáil Éireann to approve the Second Stage of this Bill, repealing the Cement Acts, 1933 to 1962, thereby removing the requirement that a person who wishes to manufacture cement must obtain a licence from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The enactment of this Bill will not give rise to any direct cost to the Exchequer and will not have any significant implications for the economy. I trust this is to the satisfaction of the Members of Dáil Éireann.

Mr. Perry:

The purpose of the Bill is to repeal the Cement Acts, 1933 to 1962. The principal provision of the Cement Acts is that a company cannot manufacture cement without a licence from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is important that we are changing this. The legislation facilitated the establishment of an indigenous manufacturing base for the production of cement. The repeal of the Cement Acts, 1933 to 1962, is proposed on the grounds that the industry is operating successfully, given the current economic boom and unprecedented growth, and the need for regulation has become redundant. It is important to have competition in the industry.

The Cement Acts bestowed a uniquely favourable position on Cement Limited, by granting a cement manufacturing licence to it in 1933 which ensured its monopoly status in cement manufacturing in the Republic to this day. It is clear that, from the inception of the Cement Act, the intention of the State was to assist in the creation of an efficient indigenous cement industry. It is also clear that Cement Limited was not to enjoy super normal profits as a result of its cement monopoly, which apparently was the case. CRH incorporated many companies and had a unique monopoly in the State.

In 1969 Roadstone took over Cement Limited and is now Cement Roadstone Holdings Limited. CRH went on to control the Irish market for industrial explosives, a key ingredient in the production of aggregates, by taking effective control of Irish Industrial Explosives, the monopoly producer and supplier of explosives in Ireland.

In the mid-1980s the Government again stepped in to enhance the dominant position of CRH by introducing the cement certification scheme. This scheme, although introduced by the Government, clearly breached the Treaty of Rome, as it had the effect of eliminating and-or preventing competition in the cement market, to the detriment of concrete producers and the public. The European Commission had established that this was a barrier to trade.

In 1991, CRH purchased Glen Ding through a secret sale of this reserve by the State. The price paid by CRH for the Glen Ding reserve and its freehold was a tiny fraction of its worth. CRH had an immensely dominant position in the market for aggregates. It should have been specifically excluded from purchasing Glen Ding, rather than being specifically favoured with its purchase.

In 1985 there was an agreement between CRH and the ESB for the purchase of PFA. The State, through the Competition Authority, permitted the signing of an agreement between CRH and the ESB which allowed CRH to purchase PFA – pulverised fuel ash – from the ESB. Logistically, this agreement has had the effect of exclusivity. PFA is a waste product produced by the ESB at Moneypoint, which can be used as a substitute for up to 35% of cement usage. Rather than ensuring the PFA was sold to independent concrete producers, where part of its cost savings could be passed on to consumers, CRH was favoured with being allowed to absorb what would normally have been a competing product. This was a fundamentally flawed decision on the part of the previous Competition Authority and gave a unique opportunity to CRH.

The issue of the Greencore quarries arose in 1996, when CRH, which already held an immensely dominant position in the market for aggregates in the State, was allowed to take over the sugar company quarries without any reference to the Competition Authority or declaration of its existing dominant position in the market for aggregates. The Barley Hill and Mount Nugent quarries also originally belonged to Irish Sugar but were sold to CRH in the early 1980s. When added to CRH's existing lime capacity at Trim, County Meath, and its subsequent takeover of Stoneford lime quarries in Duleek, County Meath, this gave CRH a virtual monopoly in the production of agricultural ground limestone in the Leinster region. This dominance in ground lime has spread throughout the Republic through an incessant policy of takeovers, both hidden and transparent, once again giving CRH a dominant position in yet another market.

It is important to have competition in every industry. There was an exclusive market in cement, which is a vastly profitable business, and small quarries were bought out because they could not get the aggregate ingredient to make cement. CRH has also secured a dominant or monopoly position in the Republic in the highly lucrative markets for superfines for fertilisers, animal feedstuffs, etc, mainly through the acquisition of Milverton Quarries, Skerries, in the 1980s and the recent acquisition of Castlemore Quarries in Cork. This market sector, although much smaller in terms of volume, is known to be one of the most lucrative divisions within the CRH group.

Dolomitic limestone is a scheduled mineral under the Minerals Development Act, 1940, and is quarried predominantly for ground limestone with State mining leases, and in the knowledge of the Geological Survey of Ireland and the exploration and mining division of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. There is currently one mining lease for dolomite-dolomitic limestone. This was obtained in 1969 by Pfizer Chemicals, which is now operated by CRH, which pays a royalty on material used in the high value fertiliser market only. CRH operates other similar reserves without a licence and, apparently, without a demand for royalties. This contrasts greatly with one independent operator we know who has been unfairly levied with massive royalty demands from the exploration and mining division.

The purpose of the Bill is to repeal the monopoly provided for in the Cement Acts, 1933 to 1962. CRH had a huge monopoly for a long time and dominated the market. It was a one family business throughout the State. There were acquisitions of title, but by and large the majority shareholder was CRH.

This legislation will encourage fair competition. If one company has a monopoly on the manufacture of aggregates, that is, the components to make cement, it will be a closed shop. No doubt it is an expensive business to develop, but the objective should be to introduce competition. In the new millennium there is unprecedented demand in the housing market and this will continue in the next five years. While we are all aware of the price of houses and the margin of profit of developers, we should be aware of the costs of production. The market is being manipulated by developers and suppliers to the trades. The consumers, that is, the young couple buying a home, are paying prices which are three and four times the cost of production. There is a cost of product and an operating margin of profit in any business, but whether it is cement or the provision of houses which follows on from that, it is unbelievable that people can make profits of 300% and 400%.

Since the foundation of the State the construction industry has been dominated by one major player in the cement business, that is, CRH. A new alliance of smaller players in the market has been formed and it is important they it should get assistance in order to be in a position to offer competition. It is in the interests of the consumer that the cartel, which was clearly evident from the manufacturer of cement down to the developer carrying out the work, is broken.

The continuation of a licensing regime is unnecessary and may have had the effect of discouraging or eliminating competition. There are two major players, but the Government is clearly establishing that it welcomes competition. If there are secret acquisitions being made or the larger player is buying out a smaller company, this is not seen in the public domain, although obviously the Companies Registration Office would be notified of the change of ownership. When a company has a limitless chequebook, it is hard for a smaller player to resist.

If there is a monopoly in any business, be it retailing or anything else, it is the consumer who will lose. The operation of free trade, which is not anti-competitive, is important. We all heard the debate about the grocery order. The Competition Authority found that the grocery order was anti-competitive. For an authority with few resources, it spent a huge amount of time analysing that market. If it had done a study on the cement market, I am quite certain it would have seen anomalies in the dominance of one major supplier in the trade.

Section 2 provides for the Short Title and the commencement of the Act. The Bill does not have any financial implications, but it is important that there is a level playing field and that people who are hoping to get into the market should be able to do so without having to go through rigorous dated legislation to acquire a licence to manufacture.

In 1969, Roadstone took over Cement Limited and became Cement Roadstone Holdings Limited. Explosives are a key ingredient in the production of aggregates and CRH took effective control of Irish Industrial Explosives. It is important that under the Bill the new companies coming into the market will have access to this monopolised market controlled by an existing company. A new company entering the market should have access to the ingredient dolomitic limestone. Companies should have access to the markets in aggregates and fertilisers also, and there should not be a monopoly in those markets.

The company has held a monopoly for 66 years. It is outrageous. The Acts bestowed a uniquely favourable position on Cement Limited by granting a cement manufacturing licence for that period. Cement Limited is still the only entity producing cement in the State. This would indicate the power of the company and the effectiveness of the Act. I am astonished that these Acts have not been amended before now, but I suppose it is better late than never. The legislation will be important in the future.

Last week I saw a case in Sligo where a house, which was £65,000 18 months ago, was sold for £125,000. The market has been affected by devel opers and property speculators. It is important that people should be aware of the cost of building a house. If a person is building a house of 2,500 sq. ft. or 3,000 sq. ft., the cost of product should be clear in order to establish the level of profits. Under the Insurance Bill, 1999, the level of commission must be included in a policy in order that people will see how much they are paying in commission. Likewise, it is important that a person buying a house can see clearly how much profit the developer has made. It should be easy to benchmark the level of profit which a developer has made on a given estate. That information should come into the public domain. People are becoming very selfish. They are not happy taking 25% or 30%; they want 200% or 300% profits. There was a monopoly in the cement industry and equally there is a cartel in the housing market in most counties. It is hard to change that. In most counties the housing market is controlled by three or four people. They were quite happy with the way it was. They could well afford to pay inflated prices, if that was the case, because the consumer was paying quadruple the price on purchasing that home.

We welcome competition. I am not an expert on the detail of this complex issue. It is very important that new companies enter the market and that those which are dominant in the market do not control supply totally. If CRH has a monopoly in the supply of components for making cement, new companies will find it very difficult to establish themselves.

I welcome this important Bill and I hope that ultimately the consumer will gain through a free and competitive market in terms of the supply of cement. There is no point in making developers richer by providing cheaper cement. It is very important that the beneficiaries will be those purchasing homes, but regrettably that is not the case. Last week a constituent came to my office who is paying £700 per month for rented accommodation. She looked at a home which would cost £110,000, but was unable to get a mortgage on her income. Some years ago repayments of £700 would have serviced a substantial mortgage. However, one must now pay between £1,100 and £1,200 per month to service a mortgage of £110,000 or £120,000. This is a clear problem. A new poor is emerging despite the economic boom.

Last week I spoke to an auctioneer who said his biggest problem was that when he tells a client who is looking for £100,000 for his house that he has found a buyer, the client says he will wait longer and asks the auctioneer to increase the price to £125,000. Everybody is going for the last pound. Despite the boom in the economy a vast number of people will not be able to afford a mortgage.

Repealing the cement enactments is very welcome because they guaranteed a monopoly to one dominant player in the market since 1933. I appeal to the Minister of State to ensure there is transparency in the market so that there is a defi nite price per square foot, be it £25 or £30, for each development. This must be benchmarked in future in terms of affordable housing.

In a very worthwhile initiative local authorities in each development are now costing the site and the houses and are assessing people whose incomes are under £20,000 to see if they can afford to buy such houses. Such an approach is very important in every development, not just in terms of local authority housing. Developers are getting richer and are making millions of pounds on the backs of building societies. Building societies are dishing out not only two and half but three times people's salaries. They are not even looking for P60s – all they are seeking is a certification of income on which any figure can be inserted. I know regulation is being introduced, and that is very important. Consumers are very anxious to get a mortgage and more often than not they will come up with the necessary documentation.

Interest rates are creeping upwards again. People are saying that interest rates are low, but regardless of interest rates people forget that the principal must be repaid and I think this is where the real problem will lie. Apart from interest people are paying huge amounts of their income repaying the principal and this is very much related to transparency in the market.

The Bill refers to cement and related concrete products, the major ingredients in house building. It is a vast industry and the competition being provided for will bring benefits, not only to other companies which in turn could become monopolies, but to our constituents who are hoping to buy homes. The Bill should not allow more people to make further millions of pounds. There should be transparency in the market in terms of the cost of product and the cost of building a house should be widely known. I am quite certain the Department can provide benchmarks in this regard. The Minister will introduce legislation whereby brokers will have to declare their commission, for example, of £25 on a car insurance policy, and it is very important that the net profit on developments is clearly evident and properly audited to see if it is justifiable. If excessive profits are made then developers should be taxed accordingly. This would help home purchasers.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak on the Bill and hope that the beneficiaries will be the consumers.

Mr. Rabbitte:

This is the second short Bill published by the Department in the past two weeks which does not amount to a hill of beans. The Bill is of little consequence and does no more than remove from the Statute Book legislation which is redundant, although that is to be welcomed. It should also be welcomed in so far as it sends out a signal in terms of competition in an important industry. However, the Minister of State in his speech said:

The original legislation has been largely unused for over 20 years. The purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to remove a piece of redundant legislation from the Statute Book.

Therefore, it does not seem that the Bill will make much difference. I would like him to elaborate on this point. What does he mean when he says it has been unused for 20 years? Were there applications over that period for licences from other companies to enter the market? I am not sure what is meant by unused. I understand what is meant when the Minister of State says the legislation is redundant, although if the legislation is still on the Statute Book I would have thought it was still mandatory on prospective manufacturers of cement to seek a licence. In that sense the legislation is not redundant. Does he mean it has had no practical effect in the marketplace? I am not sure, but I hope he is. I welcome the Bill in so far as it is desirable to remove redundant legislation from the Statute Book.

We could have a wide-ranging debate on the nature of competition and its absence for so many years in this area. From the debate in the Seanad I recall there was a wide-ranging debate which was not always relevant to the Bill. There was a very interesting discourse on the nature of the CRH monopoly and the manner in which senior people in CRH interact with other leading companies, especially the financial institutions. That is a very interesting debate but I am not sure it has much to do with the Bill.

Of course, the incestuous interaction of a small number of senior industrialists who pop up in all the main places, be it on the boards of the banks or leading industrial holding companies, is a phenomenon which is not healthy. Presumably, it has something to do with the smallness of our society and economy and it has taken on another character because of recent revelations and inquiries in which the Minister of State's Department is engaged. I am not sure it has a great deal to do with this legislation and I do not purport to go down that road.

I recall, however, that people who wanted to enter this industry made representations to me on a number of occasions over the years but they felt that monopoly power was used to suppress their ability to enter the market. They have not made contact with me since the Bill was published. I have had no discussion with them and my memory is unreliable but I am sure the Minister of State is aware of who the people concerned are. They feel very hard done by.

I saw a further reference to a High Court case in The Irish Times on Friday, 14 April. It stated:

A High Court judge yesterday said that evidence before him had established that, far from coming to court with "clean hands", the cement manufacturing firm, Sean Quinn Group Ltd., was involved in "doubtful practices" regarding an application by another company to establish a £40 million (51 million) cement facility near Kinnegad.

Mr Justice Quirke said the group had made "surreptitious" payments worth £30,000 to a residents' group opposed to the Kinnegad development.

I am sure the Minister and his officials are also familiar with that case. Murky practices seem to go on in the industry. It seems extraordinary that a company which applied to open a cement facility at that location was engaged in funding protesters under the counter. To some extent that has characterised parts of this industry down through the years. Will the Minister of State respond specifically on that? He stated that the legislation is redundant and has had no relevance for 20 years. Is he saying that it was easy for outsiders to enter this market over that period? Were there obstacles? What does he know about the case I mentioned, for example? It is important that we hear about that.

The Minister of State did not provide figures on the usage of cement in this economy over recent years but, obviously, as Deputy Perry said, it must have been a major increasing factor in recent years, given the boom in the house building sector, the expenditure of EU Structural Funds and so on. As I understand it, CRH has 80% market share, which is manifestly a dominant position. No Irish law prevents a dominant position but there is one which is supposed to prevent abuse of dominant position. They are two different concepts and it is possible to be in a dominant position in this economy without transgressing the law and, arguably, without engaging in anti-competitive practices in terms of preventing entry to the market of other players. Sean Quinn Group Ltd. has 15% of the market and the remaining 5% of the market comprises imports. I would like the Minister of State to outline who has tried to enter the market in recent years or who has made application to his Department for a licence.

What has prompted the legislation? There must be many Acts on the Statute Book which are redundant and which should be repealed. Deputy Owen and I completed deliberations on Committee Stage of the Copyright Bill, 1999, yesterday at the Oireachtas Select Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. The purpose of the final amendment to the Bill, which was mine, was to remove the Copyright Act, 1963, from the Statute Book because only one small section of it remains extant. My amendment intended to insert that section in the new legislation and repeal the Copyright Act, 1963. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Kitt, could not tell us why he would not do that except to say that his way was better than mine and he is the Minister of State, and since I am in Opposition he wins the argument. He has more Members to support him for the moment anyway. What has prompted the Minister of State in this instance to take action to remove redundant legislation from the Statute Book but not to do so in other areas?

We are dealing with legislation that is an anachronistic hangover from the era of protectionism. It was considered appropriate in the 1930s that we ought to build a protectionist economy, behind which we could shelter from the winds of free trade and in the process develop strong indigenous industries behind that barrier. It is one of the great tragedies of our economic history that that policy prevailed for as long as it did. The former Taoiseach, Séan Lemass, who introduced this legislation in the 1930s, was also the man who started to dismantle the protectionist economy and it was also a tragedy for the generations of young people who were forced out of Ireland because they could not obtain employment that Mr. Lemass did not come to power in 1948 rather than in 1959. The period 1948-59 was a lifetime in the history of people from my part of the country and that of the Minister of State. They had to go to England and the United States to make a living because the protectionist economy was an endemic failure as employment was not created.

It seems we are dealing with legislation from that era which has long since had no relevance. We are removing it from the Statute Book but I am not sure about making claims for it beyond that. It is useful but it does not send much of a signal about competition. There are a few prospective new entrants to the market. How many applications does the Minister of State have to hand? I do not know what their relationship with him has been up to now. It is pity we do not have figures for expenditure on cement over recent years. The other main factor in the industry is price and Ireland is the fifth most expensive cement producer in the EU – the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. That is quite material. I do not know whether economic studies have been carried out in terms of what contribution the lack of competition has made to that statistic.

Against a background of a £40 billion investment in infrastructure and EU Structural Fund programmes, the spend on cement must be enormous. For one company to have 80 per cent of that market is unhealthy. I would, however, be interested to hear from the Minister how that is likely to change. The cement manufacturer Quinn was shut down and started to manufacture on the other side of the Border. That company is now seeking permission to open a plant in County Cavan. The Minister should be frank about the casualties which have resulted from this monopoly.

Deputy Perry spent some time dealing with house building. Obviously that is a major issue confronting society and he took a more optimistic view than I do. This Government will not take on the builders' cartel. In this quiet Chamber one can hear the thunder claps from Dublin Castle which signify that the Minister and his party will not take on the builders. The situation is grossly exploitative at the moment in terms of the average young person trying to buy a house, there is a psychosis in the housing market.

It is arguable that the big five auctioneering companies in this city are also contributing to the current problems. There is an unhealthy arrange ment between them and the property pages of the newspapers which must be examined. There is a psychosis designed to drive up the prices beyond the reach of ordinary people because of the imbalance between supply and demand. Perhaps the Government will tackle the cartel but what basis have we to believe it will? It has done nothing in three years. The perfectly groomed Minister for the Environment and Local Government hides behind Mr. Bacon and tampers at the edges but the price rises continue. The best we can be told is that there is now a slowing down of the rate of acceleration of increases. It is extraordinary that young couples whose own parents could secure a mortgage are now denied access to home ownership because they cannot afford a mortgage.

If the Minister and his Department wanted to make a fuss about repealing the legislation he could have given the House an economic assessment of the contribution the absence of competition in this industry has made to the phenomenon of spiralling house prices. There is no point coming in with the anodyne script the Minister read; there was nothing in it. It told us that the Act was brought in by Seán Lemass in the 1930s and it is now being repealed, that it has been irrelevant for 20 years and that the Government is committed to competition, apple pie, motherhood and whatever you are having yourself. The House deserves, if precious legislative time is to be devoted to a Bill like this, some economic presentation of its implications, otherwise it has no meaning.

Would I be right in saying that even though the requirement for a licence to manufacture cement is being abolished in this Bill, there is still a requirement to get a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency? Pollution is one of the major factors in the manufacture of cement. It would require a major investment to comply with proper standards in that area. That must also be a barrier for new entrants, the costs must be huge. If we are repealing this, will the Environmental Protection Agency continue to have a role? I am aware that when this legislation was enacted and for many years after there was no planning legislation worth talking about. There is planning legislation now, however, to cope with new entrants.

I would like to see more competition in this market. If we do see it, it will because of the state of economic activity rather than the repeal of this legislation. If I was to consider opening a cement plant today and I had to apply to the Department for a licence, I would get one. That brings me back to the relevance of this Bill. Is it internal housekeeping? If so, that is fine but it does not go any further.

We have not straightened out our view of competition. There are areas which readily come to mind. Deputy Perry expressed a view on the situation obtaining in the grocery trade in respect of the groceries order. Equally the situations with pubs or taxis could be examined. One issue which should be of major concern to this House is the newspaper industry. Talking about newspapers is a delicate matter for politicians because the newspapers are oxygen for them and, therefore, there is a feeling that one should turn a blind eye to practices in that industry. It is worrying that in a democracy there is such a concentration of ownership of the print media. So long as the owners of the dominant position are favourable to the Government and help them to get elected, I do not suppose they will do anything about it but it is unhealthy that it should be allowed to continue.

Debate adjourned.