Competition and standards are the consumer's shields

Following the draft legal notice regarding licences for pharmacies, published at the end of November, the Consumers' Association submitted the following comments.

First, the association protested that it was never consulted on this issue though we had always pointed out our views publicly to have this sector opened up to competition. It was noted from the press statements that the GRTU, the Chamber of Pharmacists and the Ministry for Health admitted publicly they had discussed the issue and seem to have had reached an agreement prior to the publication of the regulations. We also noted that, though consumers had a direct interest in the issue, we were never consulted and if any agreement was reached, this was done behind the back of the consumers. Unfortunately, consulting only certain business and professional interests seems to be the trend of the ministry in question.

Secondly, we suggested that a number of articles in these draft regulations that are intended to restrict entry into the market, and thus competition, should be removed. We have reiterated our position that the best interests of consumers are served by having competition and standards. Restricting competition will only serve to protect the interests of the present operators in the market who enjoy quasi monopoly position. Such a situation neither protects the interests of consumers, nor those of prospective operators nor will it bring about fair competition.

The reasons brought forward for restricting entry into the market do not hold water. The main argument put forward is that opening up competition would result in having "many places... without a pharmacy". In the present scenario, such a situation would not materialise as there is a considerable number who had shown interests in opening up a pharmacy. Opening up competition would surely provide the consumers with choice, a fundamental right of the consumers.

Moreover, the association is sure there would be no shortage of trained staff to man these pharmacies. The association knows that the outflow of new graduates is more than enough to meet the demand. It should be remembered that more than 250 pharmacists graduated during these last five years, most of whom, we are sure, have the will and ability to provide a service to the community by opening up their own pharmacy. These are being denied the right to own their own business while the consumers are being denied choice. These regulations are only intended to defend those who are afraid to face competition and would like to continue enjoying their status of quasi monopoly.

The association also pointed out that article 10 needs to be strengthened. This article requires that all pharmacies should be easily accessible to the public. We have proposed that this article be strengthened by specifically mentioning people with special needs. We noted that many existing pharmacies are not accessible to people with special needs. A case in point is Valletta where the pharmacies in the main streets are not accessible to people in wheelchairs. Thus, we proposed that a time-limit of one year be given to all existing pharmacies to comply with this requirement.

We hope that the National Commission for People with Disability have made submissions to this effect. The Consumers' Association believes it is high time we start putting our money where our mouth is and start bringing about practical changes needed to change to the better the day-to-day life of this important sector.

The association pointed out that it agrees to the standards that are imposed by the other regulations. However, we feel these regulations seem to assume that business has not changed since the beginning of the last century. We pointed out that developments have taken place even within this sector and that these regulations should reflect these changes.

We feel that the article laying down that the "external appearance of the pharmacy shall reflect... that the main practice of pharmacy is the main purpose of the establishment" is not really necessary to maintain the standards required. If this article is enforced, we doubt whether a very small percentage of the present operating pharmacies would satisfy this unnecessary requirement. We believe it should suffice that the section of the establishment operating as a pharmacy is clearly indicated to the public and conforms to the standards required. The requirements imposed would thus be applicable to this section of the establishment and would leave the establishments to operate as they are.

The above views have been sent to the ministry concerned and also to DG SANCO (responsible to consumer affairs) and DG Competition in Brussels as we are concerned with the new trend, in many economic sectors, that using the excuse to better standards we restrict entry into the market. This argument is fallacious as it is only through competition and better standards that the consumers' interests are safeguarded. Restricting entry into the market would only protect those already in the market from further competition, would restrict choice to the consumers and would not bring about a level playing field. We also like to point out that we have also written to the Division for Consumers' and Fair Competition to intervene.

Finally, the association would like to point out that one of the objectives of setting up the Ministry of Health was to protect consumers and not business interests.

Mr Borg Bonello is president of the Consumer's Association