PHARMACY LICENSES – The Hidden Agenda - Benny Borg Bonello
 

I refer to Mr de Bono’s letter entitled ‘Pharmacy Licences – The hidden agenda’ (TMID 12^th Jan 2004).

Mr de Bono was dead right in his title because his letter shows his hidden agenda.  He is less interested in the issue of Pharmacy Licences than in getting at me.  His previous letter indicated that there was a hidden agenda behind the style used.  Last time I asserted that he was more interested in getting the messenger than shooting down the message.  This letter confirms this.  Through his previous letter I suspected that he wanted to shoot down the Consumers’ Association.  Now I am sure that he was more interested in giving me a bad name than pushing his arguments to justify the GRTU’s stand on the issues.

He expects the Consumer Association to be ‘constructive, factual and honestly correct’.  So do I expect from him.  Anyone who read his letter and knows me, knows also that he is neither ‘constructive, factual (n)or honestly correct’.  The least I expect is that before one attacks another personally, he should verify facts.  This apparently does not feature in Mr de Bono’s approach, though he continuously speaks of checking the facts.

He said that I was a member of the Student Selection Board.  Mr de Bono should have checked his facts.  I was never a member of the Student Selection Board.  I am amazed that he should be wrong on something factual that could have easily been checked.  That shows that, for some unknown reason, since I do not know Mr de Bono, his target is myself and not the issues at stake. 

In his previous letter Mr de Bono accused the Association of not having the resources nor the time to check facts.  Since Mr de Bono and his Chamber have both and he does not use them, shows his true agenda.

Then Mr de Bono tried to implicate my political views on the whole issue.  As I pointed out in my previous letter, our Association has active members from all political shades.  However, we act professionally and always succeed in acting together because our interest is simply consumer interest. 

Mr de Bono, without realising, confirms this.  He criticized the Association for not taking a more active role with regards to the VAT increase.  If the Association was run on political motives, the simplest and best way to attain my political agenda way would have been to cave in to the subtle pressure being put on us by the business sector to join them on a crusade against the Government because of the increase in VAT.  Yet, we did nothing of the sort.  We contacted the competent authorities to urge them to keep an eye on what’s going on.  We will do our best to work with the competent authorities to see that no price hikes would result. 

Then Mr. de Bono repeats his description of the eighties.  He does not realize that the very same reasons, which he is using today, were used to justify the then economic system.  He writes that the protection which had been provided to the local producers and suppliers then, had to be paid by the consumers.  Yet, he is advocating and pushing the same strategy.  Let there be no competition where a pharmacy is already in existence. In other words, protect those already in business from competition by excluding others.

Neither would his criticism of the selection of students at that time justify his stand to restrict entry to new pharmacists and others who are interested in investing in this market.  Restricting entry would mean that students would be able to study pharmacy but then would only be able to practice it only as employees.  Students who study pharmacy want more than this and we should provide them with that possibility.

That is why I said that Mr. de Bono is still trapped in the mentality of the eighties as what he is advocating would bring about the same results.  It seems that although times have changed, Mr. de Bono does not seem to realize this.  He is still advocating restriction to entry.  Those who want to invest, as long as they stick to the established standards of products and service, should not be restricted in any way.  This is both healthy and beneficial to the economy, to the entrepreneur and to the consumers.

With regards to the Difensuri tax-Xerrejja, neither the Association nor I had anything to do with it.  In fact, during those times we protested several times on both quality and choice of products with the authorities.  We also protested that the protection given to producers and suppliers was being paid up by the consumers.

Mr. de Bono always argues that pharmacies are special and thus they should be protected.  We do believe that the part of the pharmacies, which operates as such, is special.  That is why we agree that the standards concerning the part used as a pharmacy should be higher than the rest of the outlet.  But being special does not also carry with it the right of protection by excluding new entrants into the market. 

It would be enough to have all players abide by the standards.  That would result in a level playing field. But how can one have a level playing field if not all are being given the chance to play? 

I believe the Association was right in its stance with the Ministry of Health to insist that, for example, accessibility should specifically mention people with special needs and to insist that all new comers should comply with this requirement as soon as they start operating while giving a breathing space of one year to those already in business. 

We also said specifically that the regulations regarding standards in the pharmacy do not take cognizance of the fact that today’s pharmacy outlets are a combination of a general business, usually specializing in personal care and a pharmacy.  On this issue, our stance, most probably, is the same as the GRTU’s.  We believe that we should recognize and accept such developments as long as the standards would be applicable to that part which is being used as a pharmacy.  We are all for developments in the business sector which are either beneficial or are not detrimental to the consumers.

Mr. de Bono accuses me of being quite vociferous whenever the GRTU was involved.  If he is implying that I have anything against the GRTU, he is wrong.  As far as I can remember the only times our paths crossed, were on the MV Doulos affair and some years ago, on the same pharmacy licences issue.  It is not my style to be vociferous on anything.  But I cannot ignore comments and assertions on my Association and myself which are neither ‘constructive, factual (n)or honestly correct’.

I quote one example on the type of relationship we maintain on different issues.  In 1999 we asked Maltacom plc to issue itemised billing.  Maltacom did not agree that such a service should be provided free.  We continued to argue that since a small grocer is obliged to inform the consumer of every item for which he charges, we do not see why a large corporation should not do so.  When we referred this to the then Regulator, he informed us that he does not agree with us.  We persisted on our stance.  Today, Maltacom plc is complying with our request.  I can assure Mr de Bono that though both the Consumers’ Association and Maltacom plc did their best to attain the positions taken, we always acted civilly towards each other and never dragged ourselves into attacking each other on a personal level.  In spite of the fact that they did not agree to our request, we still believe they are an important player in the telephony sector and are providing an essential service to the consumers.

We also use the same attitude with individual retailers.  Though, we continue to persist whenever we feel that the consumer is right, we always maintain the best relationship possible. 

The same can be said on this issue, where other parties are concerned.  We maintain our stand and are ready to discuss with all.  The fact that we do not agree does not make us attack each other personally as Mr de Bono seems in the habit of doing.  In fact, we hope that in the near future we will discuss the issues pending with other involved parties. 

Yes, I again maintain my contention that once somebody attacks the other personally, he is admitting that his arguments do not hold water. 

Mr de Bono also wrote that I am extremely selective as to where I decide to declare consumer interest.  I see consumer interest wherever there is one.  For example, though certain state services are not usually considered as falling under the Consumer Affairs Act, we still see consumer interest.  That is why, for instance, the Associations sent its views on the White Paper on the Public Service.  We have got to be selective because our resources are limited.  As we already said, we do not receive state aid.  With regards to the EU, we only received money for specific projects like the website.  But we are thankful for the moral support they give us and for inviting us to conferences as we are becoming more sensitive to consumer issues which today are being considered in the widest possible sense. 

That is why we cannot understand the assertion that this is an industrial issue and thus by implication, consumer interests are not involved.  Since this issue involves choice, then there is consumer interest.  If Mr. de Bono is not aware, choice is one of the eight recognized consumer rights.  If one does not have a choice of outlets, one does not have a choice of neither products nor service.  Yes, we believe that competition would bring about better and cheaper products and services.  If pharmacies are not allowed by law to discount prices, then we need to change the law.  Cheaper prices do not mean inferior quality of products or services as these can be attained through standards.  That is why our insistence that entry should be free and should not be dependent on the whims of someone, whoever that may be.  We must leave it to the entrepreneur to determine where he decides to start his business.  As regards to standards, good practical regulations can take care of the minimum standards required.  Competition would secure that higher standards the minimum required would be attained.

As Mr. Busuttil was reported to have said ‘In the coming few years, the GRTU predicted confusion, with the opening of businesses and the closing of others as Malta adapted itself to the new reality within the EU’.  We are glad that the GRTU is recognizing that vast changes are necessary.  One basic factor of this new reality is that competition is a fundamental principle of the Single Market of which Malta will form part in May.  Unfortunately, the recognition of this reality does not seem to be that widespread.  If we are to avoid confusion and avail ourselves of all the opportunities, we have got to take action, change our siege-mentality, and adapt ourselves to competition as quick as possible.  Resisting change will only make matters worse.

That is why my Association has been worried since the MV Doulos affair.  Instead of adjusting ourselves to the changes that are needed, many sectors are resisting it and, unfortunately, finding the support of certain segments within the Government.  I would like to remind again the Executive that their role specifically calls to take cognizance of consumers’ interests and not only of specialized interests. 

As I had written before, in connection with both agriculture and the telecom sector, my Association believes that the best interest of the consumer can only be attained through competition and standards. 

12^th January 2004

   BACK TO TOP