Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)

I generally agree with Deputy Calleary's comments on pharmacists and I take issue with the HSE's approach to negotiations in that regard. I encourage the executive's representatives to use the Shipsey process to best advantage. However, the Bill is not entirely relevant to that process. As Deputy Calleary said in another context, the Bill is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is a naive attempt to apply the hard fought for rights and privileges of trade unions to associations of self-employed professionals. It is an extraordinary stance for the Labour Party to take but it is not unprecedented. Its stance on the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act last July would have had a similar effect and it resulted from similar professional lobbying.

A professional body is capable of being an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81 and section 4 of the Competition Act. As such, the rules and decisions of professional bodies are subject to competition law. A trade union of workers is not capable of being an association of undertakings. However, professional bodies are also aware that not every agreement they enter into or decision or concerted practice necessarily infringes competition law, which has never applied to workers. Workers do not come within the definition of "undertakings and competition policies" and, therefore, trade unions can never be described as "associations of undertakings". Does the Labour Party believe self-employed solicitors or pharmacists, who may be significant employers themselves, should be given the same rights and privileges as trade unions? The party was not established for this and I do not believe in it.

Section 2 would allow any group of professionals, including solicitors — I am one myself — to fix prices between themselves, restrict supplies and do anything they wish, which ultimately would be anti-consumer. It is an extraordinary provision to propose in legislation when we are trying all the time to reduce professional costs to consumers, reduce inflation and make Ireland a competitive country. The section is of no benefit to trade unions and would give professional employers an advantage over their employees who are often also their customers.

Section 3 is also extraordinary. It proposes to bring the Members of the Dáil into the process of negotiating with professional bodies when the State enters into contracts. This is unreal and, as legislators, we should have no direct role in this area. It would not achieve best value for taxpayers. I do not agree with the HSE's approach to its negotiations with the pharmacists nor do I agree with the Competition Authority's heavy handed approach to the IPU, which is a complete waste of resources. The authority's staff should pursue genuine cartels and price fixing, which, unfortunately, exist throughout society, despite the best efforts of the Government and the authority. However, that does not mean trade union protections should automatically be given to employers or self-employed professionals. Best value for money must be achieved on behalf of the taxpayer and, therefore, permitting professionals to band together on price would not achieve this end. However, I agree there are anomalies, which can be dealt with in the near future on the completion of the review of the Competition Act. I include non-PAYE contract workers such as some, but not all, actors and journalists in that regard.

See this speech in context