Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

No, that is not a correct interpretation of where I stand regarding the code of conduct. As far as I am concerned, there is an obligation on all members of the current Government to adhere to that code in the spirit and in the principle of that code. I hold strongly by that. I have made it very clear that I regard what the Tánaiste did in the last Government was not best practice. It was inappropriate and it was wrong. It was the wrong way to do things. I have said that. I think the Tánaiste has accepted that and he has apologised for an error of judgment on that.

The agreement was a €210 million agreement. The Deputy knows there is a separate issue on this in terms of the approach of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to all of this. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has very negative views of collective agreements with independent contractors and has taken actions over these types of agreements in the health service for quite some time. That has not been highlighted in the context of this. Be that as it may, in my view the essentials were out very early in terms of this. Of the €210 million, about €120 million was for the reversal of financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, cuts and about €80 million for the chronic disease management.

I have the statement from the IMO. As the Deputy knows, there is significant detail in that document, which is dated 5 or 6 April. It goes right down to maternity leave, contribution to locum costs and so on. There was considerable detail at that stage. As to the necessity to send it on to the NAGP, in my view it should have been published earlier in its entirety. I think most people in this House called for the early publication of that agreement with GPs, because it involves very significant public money and involves investment in our health services. Into the future, it seems to me that collective agreements of this sort with independent contractors will be more difficult because of the application of competition law and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.

I am very clear on this and have been. I think it was important that the Tánaiste addressed the issue in the House and took questions on it at some length. He acknowledged that he would not do this again and that it was an error of judgment on his part, but he did it from his perspective for the best of reasons and motivation.

See this speech in context