Politicians' silence bolsters pharmacist lobby

'Discriminatory, anti-competitive and ultimately farcical" was the just description given to a piece of legislation recently upheld by a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last week. The decision - to uphold a ban on those holding foreign qualifications from running Irish pharmacies - was, in itself, not to be condemned, writes Marc Coleman Economics Editor

The ECJ was merely throwing back at us the consequences of our own anti-competitive legislation. But that no politician has commented on the case is a damning indictment of the sheer cowardice of our political classes when presented with the faintest opposition to reform from lobby groups.

The details of the case are straightforward. Some years ago, the Sam McCauley chemist chain hired Scottish-trained chemist Mark Sadja to run one of one of its Cork pharmaceutical outlets. Irish pharmaceutical graduates were in short supply and - under a 1985 EU directive - it should have had the right to do so.

But in 1991 - under a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat coalition no less - a ministerial order was introduced to give Ireland a derogation from the directive. One of the more pathetic results of private interest bleating, its effect has been to prevent a pharmacist with foreign qualifications from managing any pharmacy less than three years old.

The derogation was the basis of a 2002 legal challenge to Sadja's gainful employment in this country by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI). The High Court was merely doing its job when it upheld the effect of the order. But brave McCauley appealed to the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to the ECJ.

Combined with a shortage of Irish-qualified pharmacists the rule could, as McAuley has pointed out, result in situations where octogenarians with domestic pharmaceutical qualifications sit in pharmacies doing the crossword so that the rule can be complied with.

Meanwhile foreign-trained pharmacists, often better qualified, do all the work.

Insidious from the point of view of consumers of pharmaceutical products, the issue lies at the very heart of the economic apartheid from which Ireland now suffers.

Manufacturing workers, building workers, journalists, service sector workers and others accept the realities of competition and wage moderation imposed by both globalisation and the influx of eager immigrants.

By contrast the pampered classes - the present-day equivalents of rack-renting landlords of the 19th century - use restrictions on entry to prevent competition. This is how they exact from us the wicked tithes that make Ireland one of the most expensive countries to live in. As they do so, the Government seems happy to hold their hats and coats for them.

It also reinforces income inequality. Tending to come from comfortable backgrounds, pharmacists tend to have more clout in local areas. The three-year rule harks back to an era of parochial cap-doffing to the doctor, the lawyer and the undertaker.

But the most odious characteristic of this rule is its sheer narrow-mindedness. Hundreds of years ago, when the only medicine available in this country was whiskey, pharmacy was being practised in most parts of Europe.

It is no disservice to Irish pharmacists to gently suggest to them that Scottish, French and Dutch pharmacy qualifications might be just as good as theirs and - if they can imagine it - perhaps even better.

The PSI is not seeking to uphold the three-year rule any longer. In a sign that it's entering the 21st century, it has accepted abolition of the derogation. But it appears to be using this issue as a bargaining chip to squeeze what it calls "a modern regulatory framework" for pharmacies operating in Ireland. But is this kind of ransom-seeking any more acceptable? It doesn't make the PSI look good.

Perhaps the Government will save the profession from itself. In June last year, the Government promised to abolish this throwback to the 1950s. A Pharmacy Bill is being prepared.

While they are at it, the Competition Authority might undertake a study of the sector. From the authority's website - and to my knowledge - no such study has been undertaken. In a paper delivered in Trinity College Dublin, entitled Competition and Regulation in the Retail Pharmacy Market, economist Declan Purcell has come up with preliminary evidence that retail margins in Ireland are among the highest in the EU. A more detailed comparison of price levels here with those in the EU would provide an instructive backdrop for the discussion of the Bill, when finally presented to the Dáil.

In response to the Bill's preparation, the PSI is seeking tough fitness to practise rules to enable it to regulate foreign-trained pharmacists working here. Some standards are clearly needed to protect the public from snake-oil salesmen. But the days of trained men in waistcoats mixing powders in the village apothecary are long gone.

Pharmacists are an increasingly retail-oriented bunch, while drugs are increasingly standardised and customers better informed.

If they do need protection, that protection should come in the form of standard-setting at EU level. The days of sheep being protected by wolves are, please God, coming to an end.

Or are they? Two Progressive Democrat politicians - Tim O'Malley TD, and PD chairman and Senator John Minihan - are closely associated with the pharmaceutical industry.

And in many constituencies, TDs may fear the verbal clout of the local pharmacist in swaying votes. But then again, abolishing this rule would give the Government a clear opportunity to put itself clearly on the side of consumers.

And if PD politicians are seen to favour a sector so strongly represented on its backbenches, their credibility will be seriously damaged.

The economic and political imperative is clear - the three-year rule must go.

Oh, and one last question: where stands the Opposition on this issue? This is precisely the area where Fine Gael and Labour should be making their mark, but are failing miserably.