Brendan Ryan (Labour)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Is annamh a fheicimid anois é. Nuair a bhí sé ina Aire Sláinte agus Leanaí bhíodh sé anseo go minic agus nuair a bhí sé ina Aire Oideachais agus Eolaíochta, bhíodh sé anseo níos minice fós. An rud is annamh is iontach.

Over the years I have learned to be a little wary of whatever is the dominant ideology or idea of the moment. I remember in the 1980s the overwhelming view in respect of Northern Ireland was that the one thing one could never do was talk to the political leaders of the organisation carrying out quite dreadful attacks. It was only when somebody challenged that and through a circuitous route began to talk that we made progress.

I like Galbraith's famous quote that the purpose of economics is to provide jobs for economists and I genuinely believe one must be wary of all professionals who are in a business where, if their ideas are taken up, they become richer. That is part of any understanding of a competitive market too, that is, there should be challenges to people who have a monopoly on wisdom.

The point I make is that in the past number of years, particularly with the make up of the present Government, there has been an almost ideological passion for competitive markets. I was intrigued to hear Senator White speak. Her contribution was in many ways interesting and I would probably agree with her on exotic choice. Anybody who shops in Tesco will increasingly realise that the exotic choice is Tesco's own brand of this or that. The dominant thing in multiples, particularly the multinational ones, is own brand at a price which is very enticing unless one has a very clear taste. I am always a little sceptical about the perception that large retail outlets promote choice. They promote choice in those goods which can be produced in a commodity fashion but they reduce choice in any area where there is a need for any artisan skills, including in food preparation, although know the Minister will make the point that does not apply here.

Artisan bakeries are now making a comeback because people, after charging off towards supermarkets, as Senator White said, are beginning to realise there is more to choice than simply the convenience of driving into a gargantuan multiple.

I am also a bit wary because, whatever the claims of economists they do not know how a market will operate if there is less than perfect competition. All their models are about perfect competition. Once there is deviation from the equilibria involved in a perfect situation one is into instability. I say this as a scientist who knows a bit about equilibria in other areas. As soon as one gets away from equilibrium one is into instability and there is no way of knowing where it will go. The first assumption of a perfectly competitive market, which is the only one economists can really talk about, is that the withdrawal of any participant should not affect the market. If the market is affected by the withdrawal of any participant, then the individual participant is not subject to the rigours of a completely competitive market. No economist yet knows what will happen in such a situation. Economists are getting Nobel prizes because of their attempts to model less than perfect competition. The reason they can get Nobel prizes is because there is such a vast area of uncertainty. Any scientist dealing with equilibrium in the physical sciences can tell one, that once one moves away from equilibrium and into instability one does not know what will happen. Therefore, I am a bit sceptical because in the area we are talking about here, one most certainly does not have a perfect market. We have three or four dominant players, the withdrawal of any one of which would destabilise the whole market. There is no doubt about that. I am recording my scepticism even though I do not have a great objection to what we are doing.

The second point to remember is that what may be good here, especially in terms of commodified groceries — products that can be mass produced — is that not all of the things people like to eat or drink can be produced as commodities because there are individual judgments and individual tastes. I take issue with the previous speaker on this matter. I am very sceptical about what, if any, role competitive markets can play, for instance, in the provision of health care, energy supply and so on. The United States is spending nearly $1 in every $6 of its entire gross national product to produce a health care system that has a lower life expectancy and a higher infant mortality rate than is the case here or in many European countries. Let us not charge down the road of competitive markets. I will return to this topic in a moment.

The idea that there is a competitive market model which could make our education system better is a load of nonsense. I am also very sceptical of the notion of competition in areas in which we have powerful monopolies. For example, every second article I read on the subject has a different view of energy and electricity prices in Ireland. If we are to use competition as an instrument to make sure people are not overcharged then we ought to have a Competition Authority that does more than write ideologically driven reports. It ought to do something. There is a quite legitimate concern among the public at large that the Competition Authority is much better at talking than it is at acting. I am not sure why. I do not claim to be an expert on this area but what I do know is that after years in existence the Competition Authority is still predominantly involved in expressing opinions.

Incidentally, I am very grateful that we have strong trade union regulation because it is quite clear from the utterances of at least one senior figure in that movement — maybe it is a former senior figure — that if we did not have the right to form trade unions the Competition Authority would take the view that trade unions were profoundly anti-competitive and would have dealt with them all because where people are not clearly entitled to organise in a trade union it has found a number of targets. The joke is that nothing is done on issues where the public desperately needs it, such as the extraordinary behaviour of the banks during the conversion to the single currency where everybody, including the Director of Consumer Affairs, rolled over and accepted the banks' argument that they had to be allowed to rip people off in another way to make up for the way they were ripping them off in foreign currency. It took the active and vigorous intervention of the European Commission, including raids on bank headquarters, to persuade the banks that they really did not have to charge as much as they were charging for a whole range of things to do with foreign currencies after the foreign exchange risk was gone.

I am not sure what our Competition Authority is for because it does not appear to do any of the things that consumers would expect of it. It is like the character in the song who marched up to the walls of the lawyer's castle, made a speech and then walked back again and did nothing. Nothing has been done. There is still an extraordinary monopoly on legal practice and a mythological process in terms of the alleged benefits of legal education. I am involved in the education of young chemical engineers who after four years will go to work with the most demanding multinationals in the world, the US pharmaceutical companies in Cork, be paid €25,000 a year and be able to make money for that company, under proper supervision, literally within a month of having arrived there. The legal profession believes that if even if a person studies law in college he or she will have to do more exams supervised by the legal profession, which sets its own standards and is operating a closed shop, after which he or she will have to get an apprenticeship, train with somebody else and be paid buttons. I find this whole thing quite ridiculous. If somebody wants to deal with monopolies and anti-competitive practices, let us start with the biggest closed shop in the country — the legal profession. The Competition Authority and the Government backed off from dealing with this formidable force in society.

The Minister, Deputy Martin, deserves credit because he took on another formidable force, the vintners, on the smoking ban. He demolished a lobby once and for all. Nobody will be afraid of the vintners again in the way people were before. The Minister deserves to be complimented on that.