Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

It is interesting to listen to the debate. I will start with two peripheral points. Members of the EU scrutiny committee on a visit to Brussels recently met with nine EU Commissioners. One of them was the EU Commissioner for agriculture, who outlined the measures that had been taken regarding Brazilian beef. It was obvious that the effective lobbying of the IFA was instrumental in that decision. I would have considered the IFA to be the pre-eminent organisation for lobbying in this country, until the pharmacy issue arose. The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland has put the IFA in the ha'penny place.

Never previously have I seen so many politicians rush to a cause. Some time ago a senior Opposition politician in the Lower House said to me, "Jim, there are two types of politician: politicians of image and politicians of substance." I believe we must constantly question ourselves as to the category to which we belong. The Health Service Executive must tackle a multiplicity of areas where money is being spent unnecessarily and one of those areas is undoubtedly medicinal products. I will return to that point later. This campaign by pharmacists is one of the most intensive I have experienced. It was reasonable to extend the date to 1 March. The Minister is in a better position to evaluate what use was made of that time by the Pharmaceutical Society but it appeared to me that there was no engagement on its side. The society continued to lobby rather than constructively engage.

As has been said by a number of speakers, the comparative cost of medicines abroad clearly illustrates that something is wrong. I am not often impressed with the content of the "Joe Duffy Show" on RTE. However, years ago I heard a number of radio programmes on the topic of people who could travel abroad and buy generic drugs at a fraction of the cost of the medication in this country. That cannot be overlooked or lightly set aside. I accept that a small number of small pharmacies throughout the country might come under pressure and that the pharmacists' livelihoods might be threatened. In the majority of cases, it is a very lucrative business to be in and one would not need to be an accountant, or a pharmacist's accountant, to come to that conclusion.

Senator Norris suggested scrapping the Competition Authority because of this issue but anybody who knows anything about the business fabric of this country would argue to the contrary. We need competition and effective competitive systems in place in the interest of consumers and everyone else. My criticism would be that the Competition Authority has been very ineffective in many areas. I was highly critical of its failure, for example, to tackle other professions who cream off society. Very little has been done in that regard. The legal profession is probably the most notorious in that resect and we in these Houses have involved ourselves in paying huge fees on a daily basis to people who are producing very little, relative to what they are being paid. That area must be tackled. In fairness to the Competition Authority, it has drawn up recommendations in that regard and responsibility at this stage rests with the Government — I am surprised it is taking so long — to come up with real measures that will make a difference to consumers in our society.

The risk takers in our society are the ones who primed this economy. They are the people who invested and through their courage, innovation and entrepreneurial flair, created the jobs that have brought this country to the standard we now enjoy, where we are the envy of many countries in Europe and the wider world.

Professions which add nothing to the economic output of the country are in a privileged position because the State has colluded in it, inadvertently or otherwise and has allowed it to continue. The pharmacists would not be top of the list in this regard. They would be well down the list, to be fair, but others in the medical profession, including consultants, would be well up on the list. I spoke to a medical consultant recently who agreed with my views on this matter but argued that nothing will change because the vested interests of the consultants and others in the medical services are endemic. Unless we are prepared to assist the HSE in achieving the savings it should be achieving, we are defeating the purpose for which we are elected.

We are paying approximately €16 billion this year to the HSE. I estimate, conservatively, that €3 billion of that money is wasted. If we could identify the waste of that €3 billion, it would do so much to address the real issue of lack of access to services that people require. It is not an easy task in a body that employs 120,000 people but it is what we must do. Where the Government sets up a body like the HSE, which is like a board of directors, to do a job it should not put obstacles in the way of what is already a difficult job. We should assist and help it to achieve the reasonable targets that have been set. My main criticism of the HSE is that it is not doing enough to identify and achieve the necessary savings. However, I have confidence in the Minister for Health and Children. If anybody can achieve the efficiencies and the cost effectiveness that we need in our health services, it is the Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, who in the past has shown the courage and the skill to manage and achieve the type of public service to which we all aspire.