Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I repeat that this is completely wrong. The Competition Authority's decision of 2004 and the agreement between Actors Equity, SIPTU and the Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland was based fairly and squarely on the application of the Competition Act and domestic Irish competition law. That is what the Bill was trying to change. In particular, the issue at stake is the concept of an undertaking, something that has not been resolved by the Government or by the social partners. This is defined in section 3(1) of the Competition Act 2002 as a "person being an individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a service". It is true that section 4(1) of the Act is based on Article 81(1) of the Treaty of Rome. In applying section 4(1), the authority looks to its interpretation in the Irish courts and by the European Commission in the Community courts.

It was a great pity that the Minister's advisers did not find it possible to refer to the Viking Line case or to the more recent decisions of the European Court of Justice. The decision in the Viking Line case asserted that the right to collective representation is a fundamental right, that it will therefore flow into the treaty and that it takes precedence over laws on transnational commerce. It is a most important ruling. I would have been happy, if this Bill had been accepted on Second Stage, to have had it amended by those who want to improve it. However, there are those in this House to whom I am opposed, who are in favour of casualisation and removing protections from workers.

See this speech in context