Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Pharmacy Bill 2007. The Government decision to approve the Minister's proposal to prepare pharmacy legislation in two Bills is regrettable because it is almost universally accepted that a comprehensive approach to pharmacy legislation is required. The most comprehensive way to proceed would be to consider all relevant issues in one Bill. I say this in the knowledge that an inordinate length of time was required to bring this legislation before the House. If it takes as long for the second Bill to see the light of day, many of the pharmacists who seek its introduction will be no more or, worse still — and this is my suspicion — the second Bill will be forgotten about once this Bill is passed and important issues will remain unaddressed.

When one realises the slow progress made in pharmacy legislation since the original Pharmacy Act of 1875 it is understandable that pharmacists fear the worst as regards the second Bill. The legislation has been updated just twice — in 1890 and 1962. I understand the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland worked on the legislation with the Department as one composite Bill and that a number of issues requiring attention will not now be dealt with because we will have two Bills.

We have been promised that the second Bill will legislate for pharmacy practice and the delivery of pharmaceutical services. Issues which will remain outstanding include the regulation of pharmacy and pharmacy services, for example, the definition of the terms "pharmacy services" and "community pharmacy"; enhanced provisions for the inspection of pharmacies; and provision for regulation of pharmacies in respect of matters such as physical condition, standards and record-keeping. These are issues of great importance and it is highly regrettable that they will not be addressed directly. Normally, when a second Bill is promised one asks the Minister when the Bill is expected. However, owing to the impending general election questions of that nature are futile in this instance.

With the fall of the Government imminent one fears the promised second Bill will not materialise. In keeping with his style, the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, established a review group. He did not disappoint us when he proceeded to set up a second review group which was asked to do important work. The pharmacy review group was given many terms of reference, including some which were relevant to constituencies such as Galway East. It was mandated to ensure a high quality pharmacy service in remote and deprived areas, take account of the opening hours of pharmacists in order that consumers would be facilitated and all reasonable health needs of the population met. It was also asked to examine and report on how a universal service and public service obligation could be identified and met and assess any funding consequences which might arise. While these issues may not be of great concern to the residents of Dublin 4, they are important to my constituents in Galway East. However, they are being ignored.

I do not want to take a totally negative attitude towards the Bill because it addresses issues of great importance. It does not, however, address any of the areas I have outlined, which is regrettable. Speaking on the Criminal Justice Bill 2007 yesterday, I stated that I deplored the rushing of legislation through the House. Unfortunately, I must repeat my comments in regard to this Bill. A raft of amendments will be introduced in this House following a plethora of amendments introduced in the Seanad. It is possible that some amendments may have been introduced in the meantime to address some of the areas I have highlighted. However, with the legislation being processed in such haste and with so many amendments, it is impossible to examine it in a few hours.

On the issue of the separation of prescribing and dispensing, how will professionals, for example, a registered general practitioner who is also a qualified pharmacist and has been prescribing and dispensing for a number of years, be accommodated? Will it be done by way of a "grandfather" clause or some other measure? Some form of accommodation is required because legislation should not impact adversely on businesses which have been operating professionally and legitimately for many years.

See this speech in context