Michael Ring
Ceist:32 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason it was necessary to deregulate pharmacies. [5978/02]
Priority Questions. - Community Pharmacy Contracts.
The relevant regulations, which set out the criteria and procedures for granting community pharmacy contracts which allowed pharmacies to dispense prescriptions under the medical card and drug payment schemes, had been subject to ongoing legal challenges. During the course of those challenges, the legal basis of the regulations was raised. Against this background I sought legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General. The advice received concluded that the regulations were ultra vires. Accordingly, I considered that I could not continue to operate the regulations and, with the agreement of the Minister for Finance whose consent was required, I proceeded to revoke them.
The effect of the revocation for the awarding of new community pharmacy contracts, is that there are no restrictions on granting new contracts in terms of location, population or viability of existing pharmacies. The revocation does not affect the operation of the community pharmacy scheme and existing contracts still stand. All existing contract applications and appeals lapsed with the regulations. Those affected should contact the relevant health board directly concerning re-applying.
The opening of new pharmacies continues to be governed by the pharmacy Acts, subject to restrictions imposed by non-pharmacy legislation such as the Planning Act.
Why did the Minister find it necessary to announce the deregulation of pharmacies in January when, last November, he established a review group comprising representatives of the Consumers' Association and the Competition Authority? Why did the Minister not wait until that review group reported to him? Did he receive signals from the group and was he unhappy with what it was going to say? Why did he not wait before making a decision? Even at this stage, will he reverse his decision until the review group reports to him? Last year the Minister received legal advice from the Attorney General, Mr. McDowell.
The Deputy should confine his remarks to questions because I would like to allow him to contribute a second time. However, I will be unable to do so if he takes too much time now.
Last year the Attorney General gave the Minister some legal advice and told him that he could deal with it under the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Did he also give the Minister political advice in January, telling him that the Progressive Democrats wanted this abolished? This will have a major effect on rural Ireland.
I can recall when the report by the Ombudsman on nursing home subventions was published. Deputy Ring and others were the first to hammer the Department and accuse it of standing over regulations which had no legal basis. Health boards and the Department were attacked and pilloried for presiding over that position for the five or six years following the introduction of the nursing home regulations. When I received the Attorney General's advice I was in the same position; would I, as Minister, continue to force people into the High and Supreme Courts knowing in my heart and soul that the regulations were invalid and ultra vires?
This is nonsense.
A Deputy
The haemophiliacs had to go to court.
Deputy Mitchell, this is Deputy Ring's question.
This arose through the Dame Street case in which the person who had been refused the right to open a pharmacy appealed the decision. In the course of that appeal it became clear to me and to the senior counsel advising that the regulations were ultra vires and would collapse. The offer of settlement made in that case was that I would undertake to reconsider the appeal and agree to grant it even before I reconsidered it. That was the nature of the deal that was done and it shows that the regulations were collapsing and the position was untenable. To make absolutely sure I asked the Attorney General, the law officer advising the Government, for a comprehensive opinion and view.
Did the Minister ask him in his capacity as Attorney General or as president of the Progressive Democrats?
I received a comprehensive opinion. Having received opinions from our senior counsel and the Attorney General, it would have been immoral for me to continue with the regulations. I had hoped that the pharmacy review body could be the route by which we could reform or refine the regulations of 1996 or create a new regulatory framework. I am still committed to establishing a regulatory framework for pharmacy by means of the pharmacy review body. I have asked the pharmacy review body to report as soon as possible as a result of the legal imperative. There was no political direction and this was not a policy decision; it was a decision forced by legal obligations.
I will allow a final supplementary question from Deputy Ring.
Will the Minister say what interest groups he met last year which put pressure on him to deregulate? Why did the Attorney General have one legal opinion last year and offer different advice this year? Was he speaking as the Attorney General or as president of the Progressive Democrats and which advice did the Minister take? This is not in the best interests of rural Ireland, it is not in the best interest of pharmacies and it is not in the best interest of people working in the industry. We do not know what kind of people will enter this profession. The Minister should leave things as they are until the review group makes its report.
I know that the Consumers' Association advocated deregulation but I am not clear whether I met with it last year. There was no political direction involved. I set up the pharmacy review body. If I wanted to deregulate, I would have done so without setting up a body.
What about Mary Harney?
The Tánaiste was informed of the body's establishment on the day I established it and did not know in advance. The Deputy may not like to hear that but it is a fact.
Was any representation made to the Minister?
No. The Tánaiste was participating in the pharmacy review body through representatives of the Department of Enterprise and Employment and through the Competition Authority which represented that side of the argument. Deputy Ring berated me all last year because Knock could not have a pharmacy under the existing regulations.
The Minister did it under the existing law.
All last year, Deputy Ring was roaring and screaming about a pharmacy for Knock and now he has done a 90º turn and is attacking me. He cannot have it both ways.
The Minister sold out to the money merchants.
I was to blame last year because Knock could not get a pharmacy.
The Minister sold out.
We must have order during Question Time. I appeal to Deputies not to waste time with interruptions which considerably reduce the number of questions with which we can deal.
Somebody got to the Minister.
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
Somebody got to the Minister. I will not withdraw it.
I think the Deputy should withdraw the last comment.
It is not untrue.
It is untrue. I would appreciate if the Deputy would withdraw that comment.
Somebody got to the Minister.
That is an outrageous accusation.
No, it is not.
It is. I would appreciate if the Deputy would withdraw it.
A Deputy
There is no pharmacy in Monaghan now.