Private Members' Business. - Pharmaceutical Products. Non-acceptance of Recommendations of Fair Trade Commission—Motion (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Wednesday, 8 Mar 1961

Private Members' Business. - Pharmaceutical Products. Non-acceptance of Recommendations of Fair Trade Commission—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that the decision of the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the 4th July, 1957, not to accept the recommendations made by the Fair Trade Commission on 29th December, 1956, should be reconsidered, so as to bring about price reductions by putting a stop to undesirable restrictive trading practices and price rigging devices whose purpose is to secure exorbitantly high prices for essential drugs, medicines, toilet preparations and baby foods in the pharmaceutical trade.—(Deputy Dr. Browne.)

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

I do not propose to speak at further length except to make one or two remarks in conclusion by way of recapitulation of what I said on last Wednesday evening. The first is that while I cannot accept the motion in its actual terms, I think I have, in the course of my reply, indicated that to a large extent I have accepted the spirit of the motion inasmuch as the investigation I have conducted into the price of drugs, toilet requisites and such, has demonstrated that the price of 90 per cent. of these commodities on sale in this country differs in no material degree from the prices charged in Great Britain and the Six Counties.

That investigation is still being pursued in relation to the remaining ten per cent. I have indicated what that ten per cent. of the drugs is comprised of and I have referred again to the terms of the motion. It would, in effect, mean that the recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission, which dealt with distribution and other factors in the drug trade as well as prices, should be applied to that remaining ten per cent. I do not know whether Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan realise that to accept the recommendation would permit resale price maintenance as recommended in the commission's report and would also permit retail houses to circulate price lists with the advice that their members should adhere to them. I do not think that the Deputies would advocate that even though the terms of their motion do. There is nothing more I have to add.

Mr. P.A. Brady

I would like to intervene in the debate briefly to counteract or contradict the statements made during the discussion. There is a sort of wild suggestion that chemists are profiteers. That is not true. The chemist, by the very nature of his calling, realises his responsibility to the public, particularly with regard to the health of the sick. The chemist has a rigorous course of training, he attends difficult lectures, he passes testing examinations and he comes out realising that he has a responsibility and a duty. I venture to suggest that he fulfils these responsibilities and these duties, apart altogether from not being the profiteer that he is supposed to be.

He plays a very important part in the life of the sick people of this country. He is a link or liaison between the doctor and his patients. He is the custodian of the poison laws as administered in this country and he has the responsibility of seeing that the patient gets what the doctor orders. He has the responsibility of seeing that the doctor's instructions are carried out. He has to check on dosage and incompatibilities. He has constantly to keep abreast of the trends of modern medicine and everybody knows that modern medicine has made great strides, particularly since the introduction of penicillin, the sulphonamides, the antibiotics and so on.

Everybody knows, and I agree, that the prices of these drugs are high. We all realise that. We also realise that that is due to the years of research and clinical testing put into the discovery of these excellent preparations. I know that they are getting cheaper and I know that they will get cheaper, Not so many years ago when penicillin was introduced here, it cost 15/- for 100,000 units. To-day that quantity costs less than 1/-. One can get a million units for one-tenth of the price it was immediately after the war. The same applies to sulphonamides. Antibiotics are much more recent. They are still very expensive but a few short years ago they were three times the price they are to-day.

Comparative prices have been quoted here and very great importance was attached to the comparison of prices as between here and in the Six Counties and Great Britain. I would advise Deputies, when they make comparisons of this nature, to be meticulous as to where they are getting their information. Being a member of the pharmaceutical profession myself, I was horrified when I heard these comparisons. I was almost ashamed of myself and I went to the trouble of getting the two lists. I have them here—the Irish list and the British list.

Last week there were some specific prices quoted in this House. The first I have here is Agarol, the Republic price of which was given as 4/- and the British price of which was given as 1/10 which is a most serious difference. The British price is 3/8, which is fourpence less than our price here. The next one is Alophen for which the Republic price was given as 2/9 and the British price as 1/11.

That is a most extraordinary difference, from the public's point of view, the position being, again referring to the British list, Alophen Pills 2/9d. in the Republic and 2/11d. in Britain. Roter Tablets were quoted here last Wednesday as being 21/9d. here and 12/- in Britain. The correct prices are: 19/- here and 19/4d. in Britain. The next one quoted is a gem in its own way: Gelusil was quoted as being 4/- here. Gelusil is used and prescribed very largely and in very great quantities by the medical profession generally. The British price quoted was 3/-, a very substantial difference of a 1/-. I know of a case recently where a man was under continuous treatment with these Gelusil tablets. He was buying them in half dozens at 4/- a time, 24/-. His wife was going to Belfast and since he required a constant supply of these tablets he asked his wife to buy him half a dozen in Belfast. He gave her 30/- expecting change when she came back. When she returned with a half dozen Gelusil tablets she gave him 2/6d. change out of the 30/-. She said: "That is a good bargain. I got them for 4/7d. each." He was paying only 4/- for them here. He made enquiries and the position is, of course, that instead of the price being 3/- in Britain and the Six Counties it is 4/7d.

The next item was Neurophosphate, an excellent nerve tonic, the price quoted being 6/9d. here and 3/4d. in Britain. The correct British price is 5/10d. instead of 6/9d.; they are 11d. cheaper but there is an extraordinary difference between 3/4d. and 5/10d. Metatone was quoted at 4/6d. here and 2/3d. in Britain. The correct prices are 4/10½d. in Britain and 4/6d. here. It is 4½d. dearer in Britain than here.

Those are the main items that were quoted in the Official Report last week. Being a member of the chemists' profession and also being a member of the public I can realise what reaction that sort of thing would have on the public. Not alone would we lose faith in the pharmaceutical profession —I do not mind that—but we would almost lose faith in ourselves. I took the trouble, when I did get this British list of going through a few items in common use. For Aspirin tablets the British price is 4/4d. per 100; our price is 3/9d. I think everybody has used Aspro at one time or another. A standard packet of 27 tablets is sold here at 1/6d; the British and Six-County price for the same quantity is 1/10d. Baby foods have been mentioned during the discussion. The very popular brand Cow and Gate Full Cream Baby Food is 6/- here; it is 6/3d. on the other side. Famel Cough Syrup is 2/8d. in Britain as against 2/6d. here. Milk of Magnesia tablets, used very largely for stomach troubles is 2/10d. here; it is 3/4d. on the other side. Another very common item is Andrews Liver Salts—1/6d. here; 1/11d. up North and in Britain. Dettol Antiseptic for sore throats, cut fingers, and so on, is 2/4d. here; it is 2/8d. on the other side.

I could go on quoting many more of these items but I do not want to bore the House with figures. However, it is very wrong for anybody to make statements without having a thorough grasp of the facts. As regards profiteering, certainly at the retail end of the pharmaceutical industry in this country there is no such thing. I cannot explain these prices I have quoted. It may be that these commodities are processed and produced in this country; these firms are subsidiaries by and large, of companies on the other side. It may be that our management has got the know-how; it may be that our workers are turning out better work. But it is a fact that, generally speaking, the balance is in our favour. I discovered that by going through these lists that are here for anybody to see.

I had an extraordinary experience recently which I may as well relate since I am on this point. A very well known manufacturer from the other side said to somebody recently that he wanted one or two of the technical men here to go over to the other side so that they could produce a particular article in order to bring it up to the same standard and the same quality as it was being produced here. I mention that point because there is a sort of slur—perhaps that is the wrong word—on the pharmaceutical industry in this country. The pharmaceutical industry, young as it is, apart from the employment it is giving, is producing an article of a very high standard, well finished, and at the proper and competitive price. I would like it to go out from this House, as I hope I have proved in these few remarks, that the position is not as was stated here, and that can be verified at any time.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I think it is worth commenting on the fact that this motion, proposed by Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan, is replied to on behalf of the Government by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and that, to Deputies who are concerned with the problem of the price of drugs and medicines, should cause us to consider where we are going in matters of this kind because if the manufacture, distribution and sale of essential drugs and medicines is purely a commercial undertaking and if it is to be done for a profit, and if a profit is to be earned from it, then, obviously, different and separate considerations come into it.

In relation to the problem itself I think there is no doubt that there is a conviction, so far as sick people are concerned, that the cost to them of drugs and medicines is far too high. In relation to the prices that have to be charged for drugs and medicines I would regard the cost as being one of the most serious health problems facing individuals in this State. The motion, as proposed, rather begs the question and it is directed towards one trading unit in the State, the chemist. I do not think that is fair and I do not subscribe in the slightest to the attack on the chemist implicit in the motion nor do I subscribe in the slightest to the views which have been expressed in the debate criticising the Irish chemist for the present situation. That is not a fair approach to the problem. We may agree that prices are too high. I do not think that is particularly the fault of the chemist; it is part and parcel of a much wider and larger problem. One factor undoubtedly is the ill-considered and foolish tariff imposed by the present Government on drugs and medicines some two years ago.

I have listened carefully to many explanations given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to that tariff. I read what the Minister said last week. I have endeavoured, so far as a private individual can, to test the view repeatedly expressed on behalf of the Government in defence of that tariff. Still I do not understand it. In my view the effect of that tariff has been universal criticism of the prices charged to sick people in this country for drugs and medicines. I do not know why the tariff was imposed. It was probably imposed originally by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or by the Government on a case put to the Minister, but it was ill-considered. It was the first time to my knowledge that in effect a tax was imposed on sick people. We know that anyone who criticises a tariff, particularly, I suppose, a Deputy from the midlands, will be accused of endeavouring to interfere with the growing Irish industry. I am willing to face such criticism of my views. I should welcome, as I said before, a genuine pharmaceutical industry in this country. I believe it is growing, that it should grow, that it should be done with more foresight than the particular Government intervention in this matter has shown.

We have no bureau of standards. There was a half-promise that we were going to have one. It is still not there. One of the real difficulties facing sick people, for which chemists are wrongly blamed in my view, is that a doctor prescribes a particular drug or medicine because the doctor who is responsible for the patient has not confidence in the alternative that may be manufactured here: the chemist has to provide it; it is provided under tariff and the cost is very much higher.

Mr. J. Lynch

But it may be procured free of tariff.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I know that. The Minister says a licence to import it free of duty may be given but that is not practicable and does not happen. In an individual case where there is a sudden illness the particular drug or medicine is prescribed by the doctor. The prescription is brought to the chemist and it has to be obtained quickly and in fact the cost is borne by the person who needs the medicine.

I began by saying that illustrative of this problem is the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is in charge on behalf of the Government of this motion. With all respect to the Minister—and I am talking about him as a corporate person—he knows nothing whatsoever about this problem. It is not his business. How does he, or how could he, know the problems that face the sick and the needy? It is the duty of the Minister for Health. Why is he not here now? Why is he not concerned in this matter? Surely the cost of drugs and medicines and the problems relating to it should be the sole concern of the Department of Health and the Minister for Health. I feel that this step taken by the Government to impose this tariff was a step which, having been taken, could not be retraced and had to be defended. I have little doubt that members of the Government possibly realised when this tariff had been imposed that it was a mistake but they decided to defend the position and to say: "We will allow anyone who desires to have it the right to import whatever quantity of drugs or medicines they want without duty." The Minister has frequently said that is the solution. That is living in the same sort of make-believe world that Alice in Wonderland lived in because, in fact, it is no solution to sudden illness which is the usual illness or to sudden emergency which calls for sudden prescription to be filled by a chemist. As a result of this policy and as a result of the lack of a Bureau of Standards in this country, there is not at the moment the preparedness on the part of doctors to prescribe the Irish equivalent in any particular drug or medicine and accordingly the sick person has to bear the brunt.

Having said that it is implicit in the motion that the responsibility for present price level and price rigging devices is that of the chemists, I do not believe that is true and I do not subscribe to it. I think this motion could have been more effectively phrased, could have dealt with the problem in a far better way if the proposer had made it more general and had aimed at having all the facets of this problem examined. In so far as the Deputies who propose the motion have not done that, we in this Party do not propose to support the motion. At the same time, I should like to say on behalf of the Fine Gael Party we are quite satisfied that the level of prices and the cost of drugs and medicines in this country, represent a very grave problem for our people. I have little doubt it is one matter that must get immediate examination.

Deputy Dr. Browne, at the conclusion of his speech, referred to the possibility that there might be a Government subsidy in relation to drugs and medicines. I certainly would not exclude that possibility. I know, and my Party appreciates, what a serious problem drugs and medicines are to the individual and I have little doubt that some new approach, some new thinking, must be made on the question. One only has to think of what it costs an average family in relation to ordinary child illnesses and various drugs and medicines that have to be provided for school children. If the doctor's prescription is honoured and abided by, then quite a serious burden has got to be met.

It might indeed be a very good thing —I say this personally—to provide free medicines for all school-going children to ensure that any illnesses or maladies which affect young children will be dealt with properly and fully. However, having said so much, as the motion is framed we do not intend to support it. We believe it is firing at the wrong bird. While there is a problem —and it is one to the making of which many people and many sections have contributed—we would prefer to see a fresh examination of it. If the motion advocated such a course it would certainly have our support. As it is we cannot support it.

Mr. Corish

I am afraid I do not appreciate the reasons why Deputy T. O'Higgins cannot support this motion. I do not know what weight one can put on words. Perhaps Deputy T. O'Higgins can define better than I can the term "pharmaceutical trade". I take it that it does not mean the chemists entirely; I am led to believe it embraces all other people engaged not alone in the retail and wholesale aspects of pharmaceutical products but also the drug and medicine manufacturers or whatever one likes to call them.

I certainly will support this motion and I am encouraged to do so by reason of a statement made by the Minister concluding his remarks. A motion of this kind, while it must be carefully worded, is not expected to be framed in the same terms as one would frame a piece of legislation, where every "t" is crossed, every "i" dotted and every comma and full stop put in their proper places. As I said, I was encouraged because the Minister declared he accepted the spirit of the motion. That is the manner in which I approach this motion. All of us appreciate the difficulties created through the high price of certain pharmaceutical products and we believe something should be done about it.

I think Deputies Brady and Loughman are more or less on the wrong foot in this matter. They appeared to be somewhat thin-skinned. I read Deputy Dr. Browne's speech—I did not listen to it—and I do not interpret it as the vicious attack on the chemists that Deputies Brady and Loughman seemed to think it was. It may be necessary for Deputy Brady to correct some figures but, while I appreciate Deputy Brady is a chemist and that Dr. Browne is a doctor, I would not exclude either of them from speaking just because they are professional men. We regard them all as Deputies no matter what their profession or calling may be. Because there has been this confusion in the evidence that has been given, because there have been so many different views with regard to prices of different commodities, I think the Minister has a responsibility to cause some investigation to be made to see exactly what is the matter, if anything.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy Dr. Browne quoted from an anonymous letter in a newspaper.

Mr. Corish

I do not think he did. He referred to letters published in the Press but as far as I know he has checked on the figures which he gave here and which are quoted in the Official Report. However, I do not think the Minister is infallible nor does he claim to be infallible but he did mention here, in part of his speech, in respect of certain commodities in this type of business, when Deputy Norton raised the question, that after holding an inquiry, it was possible to reduce the price of certain commodities by ten or twelve per cent. If that can be done in a particular instance there is the possibility that something can be done in respect of the price of medicines and drugs generally. I would like to assure Deputy Brady and also Deputy O'Higgins that, as far as I am concerned, my support of this motion does not in any way mean that I am alleging that there is gross profiteering by the chemists of this country.

The motion asks that the Minister accept the finding of this commission. The commission did report on the average profit of the chemists of the country quoted at a certain figure— £2,000 odd. I accept that figure because I believe in the integrity of the commission. Let no one get the idea into his head that the whole pharmaceutical trade is being attacked. Deputy Brady had occasion to say that chemists are not profiteers; we do not consider them profiteers, as a body. There may be certain of them profiteers as there are in other businesses. We get profiteering in every section of the community. But I do not think anybody here alleged that there was wholesale profiteering by every chemist in the country. Deputy O'Higgins has of course touched on the problem that is the concern of a vast number of people in the country. I agree with him that it is rather unfair to some extent that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be expected to take the responsibility for the subject we are now discussing.

My main reason for supporting this motion is because I am concerned about the high price of medicine and drugs in this country. It is about time, as was said here on another motion on health a fortnight or three three weeks ago, that a person in possession of a medical service card had a reasonable chance of getting the right treatment, the right type of medicines, drugs and appliances. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have no access to State or local authority schemes and who are given prescriptions for the commodities which have been mentioned — anti-biotics, sulphonamides, penicillin or whatever they may be —and it is a problem for them to meet these bills.

The medical profession do not now hand a prescription that will merely cost five or six shillings. All of us have had experience of the high cost of maintaining health in the recent 'flu epidemic when a cure for one person, or the alleviation of his 'flu condition, cost anything up to £10. When you get a prescription like that from a doctor you do not tear it up; you place your faith in the doctor, you place your faith in the prescription he gives you and, even if you have to sell some of your furniture, you will go out and have that prescription compounded. Deputy Brady has agreed that these prices are high. That is something we ought to be concerned about.

Mr. P.A. Brady

I said they were expensive years ago——

Mr. Corish

He did go on to say they had come down in price. They are expensive even now but they had been coming down in price. In the meantime people get 'flu, people suffer from asthma and are affected by tuberculosis and we should be concerned about these people now. It is no consolation to say to them: "You keep your asthma, your bronchitis or your pneumonia for another six months and these things will be cheaper."

Deputy Dr. Browne mentioned the possibility of the subsidisation of these prices. Whether that would occur through the Department of Health or through the Department of Industry and Commerce I do not know, but it is a matter the Government should consider. In speaking of these prices and comparing them with Great Britain I am sure Deputy Dr. Browne had in mind that these prescriptions were to some extent subsidised under the Health scheme operated by the British Government. But as long as all these drugs, these medicines and appliances of different types cost so much at present, or are going to cost so much in another year, five years or ten years, I think there will have to be subsidisation or a public inquiry as to why they cost so much. I know the majority of them are not made in this country, but why are there so many middlemen in between, and, mind you, I do not refer to any specific branch of the trade? I do not know whether the Minister is satisfied that there is not an exorbitant amount of profit made by all these people in between.

Deputy Brady did attempt to refute prices given here last week by, I assume, Deputy Dr. Browne. I had only one little experience. I had a headache in the centre of London; I went into a chemist's shop in the centre of Piccadilly and asked for aspirin. I was charged 4d. and there were about 20 in it. If I can get a bottle of 20 or 24 aspirins in London for 4d., and I have to pay a 1/- or 1/6 in this country, it sets me thinking. I know other people who have had similar experience in respect of some similar medicines or drugs. That is the reason there is this discontent among the people who believe that they are being charged exorbitant prices for many of these things.

Again I do not know what the Minister means by saying that he accepts the spirit of the motion. I assume he means that he is concerned about the high prices. The motion does not allege there is profiteering or anything like that. This motion asks that he accept the recommendations made by the Fair Trade Commission. I do not know why he does not because, in his own words, 90% of prices could be accepted and the only controversy there could be would be about the other 10%. I think in those circumstances that he should be prepared to accept the motion so that the people will be assured that, as far as the prices of pharmaceutical products are concerned, there is no profiteering or no racketeering and that if it is proved otherwise, the Minister will have to take action. Therefore, I and the members of my Party propose to accept this motion not because, as I say, it is an attack on the chemists but because they approach it to some degree in the same manner as the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he says he accepts the spirit of the motion—the spirit of the motion being that something should be done in an effort to provide these anti-biotics, sulphonamides etc. for the people at a fair price.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputies on all sides of the House are unanimous that the cost of medicines and drugs to the community is far too dear. Deputies may not agree with the remedies suggested in this motion to relieve the position, but I am amazed to think that Deputies would seek to evade taking a stand on this matter by suggesting they do not like the wording of the motion. We all know perfectly well what is intended by the motion and what can be done if it is accepted. It is a very poor answer to the public outside, who are worried about the price of drugs, to be told "The motion is not very well worded. We do not like it and, consequently, we could not support it, even though we think the position is bad."

It would be a simple thing for any Deputy, especially a legal Deputy, if he disliked the motion and felt it was not technically proper, to submit an amendment. That motion has been on the Order Paper for the past six months at least. Surely that was sufficient time, not alone for a private Deputy but for a Party, with all the machinery at its disposal, to consider a suitable amendment that would meet with almost unanimous approval? Instead, we had this casual approach suggesting that this was an attempt solely to blacken the good name of the chemists. Of course, that is completely fallacious. However, I do not propose to deal at any great length with the chemists. I think Deputy Dr. Browne in his reply will have some comments to make on that aspect of the matter.

None of the Deputies I listened to dealt with the profits made by some of these manufacturing companies. I agree the Minister made a passing reference to the question of the profits made by some of the great drug manufacturing firms. He actually proceeded in the course of his contribution here to defend the profits made by these firms.

Mr. J. Lynch

That is rather an exaggeration.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not wish to misrepresent the Minister. May I put it this way? He sought to give what he felt might have been genuine reasons for the high cost of medicines and drugs. He suggested that the cost of research might be added to the cost of the finished article manufactured in Britain and that a similar article manufactured by a subsidiary company in Italy was cheaper because the cost of research was not added by the subsidiary company.

Of course, that is the case made by the drug manufacturing companies themselves. When there was an inquiry in Britain recently into the profits of these companies, that was the defence put forward by them. I do not think it is fair for the Minister to give reasons that would help the drug companies to keep up their profits. Last week, I read a letter in the Daily Telegraph, written by a man who described himself as a supporter of the Conservative Party in Britain. He stated in this letter:

To rescue the patients, doctors and taxpayers, it is necessary to have our medicines manufactured and distributed under proper conditions of ownership and control.

I have read the debates in the British House of Commons which took place a few weeks ago on the health services. Charges were made deliberately in the British House of Commons that some of the manufacturing companies in Britain, and particularly the American subsidiary drug manufacturing companies in Britain made in three years in succession over 100 per cent. profits per annum on the total capital involved. That charge was not denied by the British Parliamentary Secretary. He was challenged on a number of occasions to say whether it was true or otherwise. He did say that the Government were not satisfied with regard to the position in Britain and that inquiries were on foot to see what possible steps could be taken to reduce the cost in so far as the manufacturers were concerned. But, let us be clear that, while all that is going on, the man in the street in Britain is saved from these exorbitant charges whereas the man in the street in Ireland is not saved; he has to bear the full brunt.

We know, as other Deputies have said already, that the average wage in Ireland is perhaps a little more than 50 or 60 per cent. of the average wage in Britain. Yet, the man with that wage in Ireland has to pay, when he is buying at the open price in the chemist's shop, 10 to 20 times on occasions more than what his opposite number in Britain is paying for medicine.

Is it any wonder that many people in this part of Ireland today go over to Britain when they are ill in order to get the first-class services and the medicines and drugs that are available there at a reasonable price, a price that will not put them out the door?

That is what the motion is aimed at. I do not think it is fair for the Minister to treat this as just an ordinary business matter. It is the health of the community that is at stake and he and his colleague the Minister for Health have a very big responsibility.

Mr. J. Lynch

Why did the Deputy not put down a motion accordingly? It is in their own hands.

Mr. McQuillan

Surely the Minister is in a position to realise that when the Fair Trade Commission was set up it was his predecessor in office who handled it, directed by the Minister for Health at the time and, when the two Ministers were involved in 1956, is it illogical to suggest that the two Ministers should be involved in 1961? Did the Minister for Industry and Commerce even consult with the Minister for Health on this matter? Did he come in here just to tell us that he is satisfied that as far as the price of drugs is concerned nothing can be done about it? Has his colleague the Minister for Health any interest in the health of the people? He came in here the other night and told us that a motion that we had put down in regard to health services would put 7/- in the £ on the rates and put up income tax. I can tell the Minister and the Government that the majority of the people would prefer to see income tax and rates going up provided they knew they would get services as a result. It would be much better for a man to pay 5/- in the £ more in rates and know that his family would be looked after as far as their health is concerned for the following 12 months. As it stands, a man in the middle income group with four or five children could find that his medical expenses for one child could be £40 or £50 in the year. Is not that a lot more than 5/- in the £ on the rates? That man is paying through the nose today in means tests and all sorts of things.

I will not go any further at this stage because I want to let Deputy Dr. Browne in to reply. I should like to make it quite clear to the Minister that there is something he can do. We do not expect him to take the great drug companies by the neck and say: "Reduce the prices". We know that whatever happens in Britain with regard to those companies will happen in Ireland because the backwash of the pressure exercised in Britain is felt here shortly after. We do know that the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Health, have power to, shall we say, subsidise the price of medicine. We know also that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has power to set up a bulk buying authority something like the tea buying board which was in operation here during the war. Such a board run by his Department or by a State company would be in a position to tap the world market for medicines and could make these medicines available to hospitals and local authorities throughout the country at greatly reduced prices. That type of body could be set up without any great delay and I suggest to the Minister that he should look into that aspect.

Mr. J. Lynch

What will you do with the chemists?

Mr. McQuillan

I have seen figures in regard to a London hospital which, instead of following the normal procedure, went out on its own and purchased medicines in Italy and got them at fantastic reductions. If a body such as I have suggested were set up and had authority to buy in the world market there would be an opportunity to counteract the cartels which operate at the moment to keep up prices. If that company were not entirely successful in reducing prices there would be nothing wrong in the Minister giving a subsidy to the company so that the ordinary people would get the benefit in improved health and less worry to the family.

Dr. Browne

In reply to the debate on the motion I should first of all deal with the suggestion that was made here by Government and Opposition speakers that our motion was directed as an attack on the chemists. If they will take the trouble to read the debate, if they have not taken the trouble to listen to the discussion here, they will find that our motion refers to the activities of the pharmaceutical trade and the pharmaceutical trade is the trade which deals with pharmaceuticals which includes the manufacturers, the wholesalers and the retail chemists and, if that was not clearly to be inferred from reading the motion, if they had taken the trouble to read the debate they would have found that each of these components of the pharmaceuticals trade was mentioned in detail. Therefore, I cannot accept that there is any confusion in the mind of Deputy O'Higgins when he suggests that he could not be a party to an attack on the chemists. That suggestion must be a deliberate and dishonest attempt to misrepresent the whole purpose of our motion.

I said, as reported in Column 1116 of Volume 186:

It is not clear as to who or what is, in fact, responsible for the high prices that obtain. It is not clear to me that, if we pinpoint the cause, it will be possible for the Minister to do anything or whether the Minister will be prepared to take the necessary steps to put the position right. We must look for the cause of the high prices that obtain amongst the manufacturers abroad, amongst the wholesalers and distributors, and amongst the retail chemists. It is obviously important to find out whether the cause is due to the retention of resale price maintenance schemes operated by the Irish Drug Association, the wholesalers, distributors, manufacturers, and retail chemists.

How can any honest Deputy allege that that suggestion was a deliberate attack on chemists as a whole? I concluded by pointing out that if the reason was outside the country all the unkind things we had said about the wholesalers and retailers must fall to the ground. I then asked the Minister to reply to the questions I had raised.

Deputy Brady made a valuable and useful contribution to the debate by answering questions, again questions which were asked. No other answers were given to questions asked and no information asked for in this inquiry was given. In the first list of figures which I reproduced from the newspaper in question, I gave the list of prices of various substances such as sleeping aids and vitamin tablets in the Republic and in Northern Ireland and I said:

That is a set of figures which deserves explanation. There may be an explanation. Is there that discrepancy? If so, why does it exist?

That was no wild charge. It was merely a request for information. The other figures which Deputy Brady referred to are the prices of Agarol, Alophen and so on. With regard to those I said:

Those figures are taken from current lists, as far as I know, here and in Great Britain. Are they accurate? If they are accurate, I should like an explanation of them.

Deputy Brady gave us some figures and I accept his word. The important thing in this debate is that every Deputy here seems to be taking great care to avoid the really important issue, that is the high price of drugs in this country. Deputy Brady honestly admitted what everyone knows, that prices here are, according to normal standards, excessively high. The Minister agreed with the seriousness of the situation and Deputy O'Higgins agreed that something should be done. Everybody agreed with the high cost of drugs.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Everybody disagreed with them.

Dr. Browne

Everybody agreed that the cost of drugs in this country is too high. I brought in those figures and the quotation from the newspaper and I gave those quotations from the lists of the British and Republican prices. I gave them for what they were worth and asked if they were right and I said in Column 1123:

Even if our charges were identical with the British charges, it seems to me they are exorbitant.

Of course they are exorbitant. It has been shown that the British prices in themselves are too high. Even the Tories accept that and are endeavouring to investigate it. American and British manufacturing firms are charging too much for their drugs and are making profits that are exorbitant.

I should like to point out to the Minister one discrepancy in his speech which would, I think, require some examination. He suggested that if our motion were accepted we would have to accept that prices would be circulated with the advice that members should adhere to those prices. That is what he said here this evening. However, at Column 1142 last week he said:

The Irish Drug Association said that their list was a list of suggested prices and that there was no question of their being—certainly since 1952—enforceable minimum prices.

Within a week they have become, according to the same Minister, prices which they should adhere to.

I want to quote for him paragraph 68 of the Commission's report.

The Paragraph says:

The Rules of the I.D.A. contain the following provisions in relation to maintenance of prices:—

Rule 12: Membership of the Association shall imply adherence to the rules, agreement to adhere strictly to the price conditions in the sale of goods and loyalty to members.

Rule 14: All prices quoted in the current price list and any alterations thereof made under Rule 25 shall be binding on all members of the Association.

Rule 16: No member of the Association shall allow any discount to any member...

Those three rules are binding on all members of the Irish Drug Association of which I am sure Deputy Loughman is a respected member, and which he says, at the same time, he is able to ignore because he can charge any price he likes. The aims and objects of the Irish Drug Association are the maintenance of the highest possible prices. There are various examples given of penal action taken against people who did not accept the price restrictions imposed by the I.D.A. It was established in 1909 "with the principal object of regulating and maintaining minimum retail prices for articles usually sold by chemists and druggists". That is a restrictive trade practice. It is price rigging, price fixing, any euphemism you like to use. As far as the consumer is concerned, as Deputy Brady says, drugs are very expensive taken in the ordinary course of events. That is one of the causes with which the Minister did not deal.

Again there is price maintenance by manufacturers. Paragraphs 63 and 64 deal with the manufacturers of a brand of medicinal salts who closed, without warning, the account of a general wholesale firm. The reason given was that he was supplying grocers who were cutting prices. Paragraph 64 says:

Seven wholesalers who were ascertained, through code marking of the products, to be supplying retailers cutting prices were asked to sign an undertaking that the product would not be re-sold at less than the list price and that they would impose a condition on retailers not to sell to the public at less than the advertised retail price. One of the wholesalers who, at first, refused to sign an undertaking did so when his supplies were stopped.

What can you call that but a restrictive practice? Manufacturers, chemists and wholesalers have ensured that there will be price fixing through this manufacturers', wholesalers' and retailers' ring. As for the retailers it was decided action would not be necessary because of the absence of any kind of price cutting amongst chemists. There is a fixed price and there is no reduction in that price no matter what chemist you go to. There is agreement to charge the one price for the same drugs and because of that the wholesalers do not have to insist on any minimum price.

The important change since 1952 referred to by the Minister is that the price list sent around by the I.D.A. is merely a suggested price list. That is true but the rules for membership of the Irish Drug Association have not changed. Rule 12 says: "Membership of the Association shall imply adherence to the rules, agreement to adhere strictly to the price conditions in the sale of goods and loyalty to members." Whatever change may appear to have taken place, in fact there has been no agreement to institute any kind of competitive pricing in relation to drugs or medicines.

Recommendations were made by the Fair Trade Commission in 1956. The Minister suggests we should have put down a broader, more sweeping resolution which would cover very much greater ground and take in very much larger interests. We put down this very restricted motion because it was based on the limited findings of a responsible commission. We would much prefer to have had our motion cover a much broader field but because it was based on the findings of this Commission we thought that these very minimal recommendations were acceptable to the Minister. It is nothing but hypocrisy for the Minister to suggest we should have covered very much more ground when he is not prepared to accept the minimal recommendations of this Commission. There is no difference between the Government side and the other side of the House.

This Commission also recommended that the coding system, one of the devices which have been used in order to tell one another what has been charged, should be abolished because dealing with the prescription side of the business it was based largely on: Think of a number and double it. As I suggested last week, the coding system should be discontinued. They made that recommendation. They also made a recommendation that toilet preparations and baby foods should not be restricted to chemists because it might lead to an increase in prices. The Commission also said in paragraph 91:

In the opinion of the commission, a collective arrangement or understanding between wholesalers relating to the prices to be charged by them is contrary to the public interest in that it involves an unncessary and unreasonable limitation of free and fair competition and, accordingly, should be prohibited.

Paragraph 92 says:

...The Commission are of opinion that, in view of the great variety of goods involved, there is justification for price lists as a guide to retail chemists, provided that, where pricing is done by a retail association, the prices are expressly stated to be suggested prices....

They go on to point out that the rules of the I.D.A. were unchanged and were binding on all members. The Minister did not answer the charges made by us that in wholesaling, retailing and manufacturing there is price rigging. The Minister cannot evade his responsibility. He says, on the one hand, he cannot touch the manufacturers. All right, he says, on the other hand, he cannot touch the retail and wholesale price maintenance, price rigging arrangements that are carried on here. He has a responsibility to see that the prices of essential drugs are brought down by introducing some limited scheme of subsidisation, subsidising for these drugs in order to remedy the present system. Once again I appeal to the Minister, in view of the very high prices of drugs to take some steps either to eliminate restrictive trade practices or introduce some scheme of subsidisation.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá: 13; Níl: 61.

Tá

Browne, Noel C.
Byrne, Tom.
Casey, Seán.
Corish, Brendan.
Desmond, Daniel.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
McQuillan, John.
Murphy, Michael P.
Norton, William.
Spring, Dan.
Tierney, Patrick.
Wycherley, Florence.

Níl.

Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Seán.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cunningham, Liam.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Doherty, Seán.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Johnston, Henry M.
Killilea, Mark.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Smith, Patrick.
Teehan, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.

Question declared lost.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 8 Mar 1961

Private Members' Business. - Pharmaceutical Products. Non-acceptance of Recommendations of Fair Trade Commission—Motion (Resumed).

Tá

Níl.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Mar 1961