Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I propose to share time with Deputy Crawford.

I find myself in the unusual position, although it has happened in the past, of agreeing with most of Deputy Flynn's contribution. I even find myself in the astonishing position of agreeing with the departing Deputy Finian McGrath. I can well understand the reason the Deputy expressed such enthusiasm for his local pharmacist. It is because he knows he does not have to vote. He is in the unique position on this issue in that, having failed to take the opportunity to vote with this side of the House to allow a meaningful motion to be passed, he has delivered a speech which has one objective, namely, that it will be copied and furnished to the pharmacist whose letter he cited. I do not take seriously any of his contribution, whereas I take seriously Deputy Flynn's contribution.

Deputies O'Sullivan, Reilly and Flynn came to the nub of the issue, which is one of industrial relations. It is to do with addressing problems which require resolutions in a matter that does not maximise conflict but leads to a successful outcome in the public interest. It is in the public interest to reduce the wholesale price of drugs. It is an outrage that almost 18% is added to the manufacturing price by wholesalers. I agree with everything the Minister stated about the cost of getting the product to the patient. The problem is that pharmacists are caught in a difficulty the Minister has with the wholesalers.

If an award were given for the capacity to conduct industrial relations in the most ham-fisted, asinine way it would go jointly to the Minister for Health and Children and the HSE. They both have their hands on the chaos we have seen on this issue during the past six months. Last Sunday the Oscars were awarded to those in the film industry and what are known as the "razzers" were awarded the previous night, the raspberry awards for the worst movies of the year. If an award were to be conferred on the Minister or the HSE, they would be at the top of the "razzer" list.

Consider the dance that is being conducted on this issue. There is a need to reduce the wholesale price of drugs. The wholesalers convinced the Minister and the HSE that they cannot engage in discussions with them, with competition law cited as the major obstacle. No attempt was made to get around that obstacle and to put in place a formula that would directly result in discussions involving the wholesalers to resolve this issue in a manner in which the retailers as pharmacists are caught in the middle.

The intention of the Shipsey process was to find a solution, but I am informed the HSE never came to the table or treated the Shipsey process seriously. We then had discussions in this House involving an independent body, based on an understanding that normal industrial relations are conducted in dealing with conflict resolution. This means a body would be appointed to engage with all sides and, in the public interest, would seek a solution which would then be implemented. The exact antitheses of conducting good public relations and conflict resolution in the industrial area or any other area is that an independent body is appointed but a solution is imposed before the work of the independent body gets under way and it comes to a considered judgment on what is the solution. That is why we are in the position in which we find ourselves today.

It is of vital importance that those who require medicines continue to have access to them. It is of vital importance that local pharmacists, who are held in high esteem by the local communities in which they operate continue to provide that service. It is grossly unfair to them that they have been put in a position in which they feel they have been trapped, as Deputies Flynn and Reilly expressed well. They are caught in the row between the Minister and the wholesalers. That suits some groups of wholesalers because they control a certain number of pharmacies. It is the independent pharmacies which are placed in the greatest of difficulty.

It is not only rural pharmacies that are affected. There are some urban, single pharmacies operating in communities which have a genuine concern about the economic position they will find themselves in with their staff if the Minister and the HSE impose an 8% reduction on reimbursement for medicines provided. It would be difficult to make a greater hames of an important issue.

I regret that the Government did not have the courage of its convictions to allow this issue to be addressed by way of a motion in the House. It would provide for Members on the Government side who might wish to eloquently criticise the HSE, such as Deputy Finian McGrath, an opportunity to show the courage of their convictions, which I very much doubt he has any capacity to do.

I listened with amusement to Deputy John Moloney, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children. In front of me I have a motion in his name which was tabled at that committee. The first paragraph of the motion urges: "That no changes be made to contracts between the HSE and community pharmacists in advance of the setting up and reporting of an independent body, whose remit will be to make recommendations on the reimbursement to pharmacists for drugs supplied under the State's community drugs schemes, in consultation with the interests concerned." That is an eminently sensible proposal and I can only assume that somewhere behind the scenes, Deputy Moloney had his bottom severely slapped politically and told to take that motion off the agenda for fear of causing embarrassment and focusing on the total incompetence of the manner in which the Government and the HSE have dealt with this issue.

See this speech in context