Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which addresses the fundamental right to collective representation and, in particular, the anomaly which currently exists for pharmacists in their attempted negotiations with the HSE. I deliberately say "attempted" because the IPU is clearly making every effort to negotiate with the HSE but the latter has dug in and is refusing to talk. The president of the MPSI has been referred to by almost every speaker. All sides of the House would agree with his statement that the union is prepared to go the table without any preconditions or predetermined outcomes. That is the fairest observation possible and the HSE should at the very least consider that reasonable and fair approach.

The proposed amendment to the Competition Act will serve to ensure the legislation cannot be used to undermine the right to collective representation of atypical workers. It is ironic that pharmacists are permitted to be members of a trade union which, in effect, is not allowed to negotiate collectively on their behalf. That is at the heart of this debate. Other European countries have found a way around the impasse, so it is not impossible to negotiate. We could follow the example of our European neighbours by amending competition law to allow recognition of pharmaceutical bodies as unions rather than associations of undertakings for the purpose of negotiating a collective agreement with the Government. Despite what the HSE and some on the Government benches have claimed, Irish competition law rather than European law needs to be amended. Other EU countries, including France and the Netherlands, have amended their competition laws to allow representative bodies negotiate with full union rights. If they can do so within the European Union, surely we can also address the issue.

The uncertainty regarding payments by the HSE to the pharmacy sector has caused significant disruption to the customers who rely on pharmacists for the delivery of services beyond simply filling prescriptions. The unilateral decision by the HSE to impose new cost saving procedures was short-sighted. The one issue community pharmacists raise repeatedly is the disdain with which they have been treated by the HSE, which chose to seek a headline about €100 million savings on the drugs payment scheme instead of taking hard decisions by negotiating and seeking compromises. The outcome for pharmacists of the pathway proposed by the HSE in a heavy handed and one-sided way will be uncertainty and threatened incomes. The knock-on effect is the fear that has been generated among vulnerable individuals who depend on medical cards or methadone supplied by pharmacists. The provision of methadone by pharmacists has been a progressive and much needed service in the community and the services provided by pharmacists to elderly customers in particular cannot be overlooked. I have been approached by a number of constituents who expressed concerns about what will happen if the services are not provided locally. They have been vocal in their support of their community pharmacists, who go beyond simply providing prescriptions and offer support and good advice.

It is up to us, as legislators, to remove the barriers to negotiation so as to ensure the most vulnerable are not forced to suffer. The best way to achieve that is face-to-face negotiations. The position of the HSE is that the Competition Act prevents it from negotiating directly with the IPU. The amendment we are putting forward removes any such problems under the Act. I recommend this Bill to the House and urge Government Deputies to back it in a public display of their support for a negotiated settlement which will benefit patients, pharmacists and the HSE.

See this speech in context