Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)

That is what is wrong here. The Minister is not sure what she is doing in the Bill. I have concerns with the Minister's contribution on the Bill. The profession needs to be regulated and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland will do a great job in that regard.

I note the Minister has no plans to introduce any form of competence assurance for pharmacists — once a pharmacist is registered, that is how it will be. The position has changed dramatically for the medical profession, which used to operate on the same lines in that once one was registered as a doctor, one remained registered for the rest of one's life and nobody would competence-assure a doctor at any stage throughout his or her life. Concerns were raised in the report of Judge Harding Clark, however, which showed a small minority of doctors fail in their duty as the years go by and that there is a need to competence-assure the entire profession. The Minister tells me she will do this some time in the next five years, if she is back in power. No such competence assurance proposals are being brought forward for the pharmacy profession — once a pharmacist is registered, that is it. Everything is hunky dory and one hopes to God nothing goes wrong after that.

Both the medical profession and the pharmacy profession have very high standards of care and strong ethical codes of conduct, and always have had. It is only a small minority which in any way abuses their position of power.

The Minister is always good with words. When she deals with the Bill on Committee Stage, we must tease out what she means by the statement: "I am confident that their different perspectives and competitive impact will keep the sector vibrant and energised into the future and all within a modern robust and progressive regulatory regime for the 21st century." She also stated: "Section 63 deals with the prohibition of certain economic relationships between pharmacists and medical practitioners, namely, either party having a beneficial interest in the other's practice that would be considered in excess of standard ownership arrangements".

When we reach Committee Stage, will the Minister clarify what concerns she has in regard to this beneficial interest? There was never to be an input from pharmacists into the primary care building, as envisaged in the primary care strategy. That strategy simply foresaw GPs coming together with inputs from other members of the health care profession in the community, such as physiotherapists, public health nurses and administrative staff from the HSE. No reference was made to pharmacists being involved. However, due to the failure to implement the primary care strategy, we have seen primary care centres develop throughout the country with a major input from pharmacy and with pharmacists to some degree anchoring primary care centres.

The Minister needs to make clear to the House what she means by this kind of regulatory function and by "excess of standard ownership arrangements". Does the Minister suggest it will be a legal requirement for the contracts between the pharmacist and owners of the primary care centre to be made public, whether the primary care centre is owned by the pharmacist, another pharmacist, the GPs or a private company? Will the contracts be scrutinised by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland? How does the Minister know something is in excess of——

See this speech in context