Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I strongly support the Labour Party spokesperson on health and others who have asked that people stand back and allow the independent body to have a clean slate to make a contribution that will endure and that will protect, in particular, the social role of pharmacists. In the few minutes remaining I can only list a few issues that I think are important.

The social role of pharmacists is important and it is affected by the diversity of supply. When deregulation was first mooted the case that was made was based on the importance of allowing young pharmacists into a profession for which they were highly qualified. Young pharmacists who came in at that time, however — this was revealed in the 26% increase figure referred to by the Minister — had to borrow heavily from banks and lending agencies to go into business. One of its internal contradictions is that deregulation in itself is defeated when it leads to concentration of ownership. If one drives on deregulation to a point of concentration of ownership at the cost of diversity of producers and suppliers, in effect, one is sweeping the ground from under the social role of pharmacists and endangering the professional capacity of young pharmacists who came into the business.

It is not correct to say that the Competition Authority has the rights to which the Minister referred. There were two possible interpretations of the Competition Authority's role, which stands like an eminence grise on this issue. The first relates to section 4 of the Competition Act, especially in the light of the Fennelly judgment in the Supreme Court decision on the case appealed by the Irish League of Credit Unions. That decision explicitly recognised the right of the Irish League of Credit Unions to represent its members on general policy. No restriction arises except in the case of decisions on price in such a way as would lead to a potential abuse of a dominant position.

The Health Service Executive is entirely wrong in arguing against the right of collective representation. The most recent case in European law is the Laval case which, while it held in favour in regard to the economic side, was not welcomed by many. It established the right of collective representation as a fundamental right. The Health Service Executive is going down a dangerous cul-de-sac in trying to suggest that in section 4 it has some right to strike at collective representation. This will arise in the case of the contract with dentists and with vets vis-À-vis the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it is simply wrong.

The former Attorney General, Mr. Byrne, later Commissioner Byrne, also made another fundamental point in a lecture to the UCD law society some years ago when he suggested that any body, such as the Health Service Executive, to which powers had been transferred, needed an envelope of clear policy directions on the part of the Minister. He stated that the Minister could not divest himself or herself of existing powers and responsibilities. I suggest the Health Service Executive has two issues. The first relates to whether it has the right to use budgeting in such a way as interferes with the statutory floor to which citizens are entitled in the Health Acts. It does not. The second interpretation I suggested was that regarding section 4 of the Competition Act. I provided an opportunity for clarification on this when I produced a Private Members' Bill. The Government is reviewing the operation of the Competition Authority. If it had wanted to bring forward proposals it could have, but it did not. Neither has it fulfilled the Taoiseach's commitment that this issue would be solved in the early stages of the talks between the social partners. The tragedy of this shambles is that on a bogus reasoning that stopped it concluding negotiations with the wholesalers, the HSE is trying to drive back through the pharmacists something it failed to address with the wholesalers. I strongly support what my colleague, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and others have suggested, that we give the independent body the best chance it has by asking it to do what Indecon suggested. I state this factually. If one interprets its report, Indecon suggested the Government deal with the entire situation together, but that is not done by laying down a condition and saying anything can be discussed once the pharmacists have conceded on the fundamental principle. It is time we examined all these issues in terms of the role of the Parliament, the Minister, citizens and the guarantees from them. In taking up the reports of outside bodies such as Indecon, let us be true to Indecon and give the independent body the best chance. Above all let us try to do this because of the anxiety those who need medicines are being put through.

See this speech in context