Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate. I am grateful for the support of all parties for the principles underlined in the Bill. It is generally acknowledged that legislation in this area is long overdue.

Deputy Twomey in particular was heavily critical of the rushed nature of this Bill. I accept it is normally not good practice to rush legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, this legislation has been in gestation for more than 30 years. I recall at one of the pharmacy dinners two years ago the president of the society informed me that his father, when he was president of the society sometime in the 1970s, was promised the legislation would be produced on the then Minister's watch. I am not certain which Minster it was but it does not matter — I am sure the Minister intended the legislation to be produced at that time.

I put my small group of officials, whom I wish to acknowledge, under enormous pressure to produce the Bill and have it enacted before the general election — the rendezvous with reality this summer. The reality is that if we did not pass this legislation now, it would probably be almost a year before it is enacted. When the new Government takes office in June, the Dáil will adjourn until October. All new Governments, even outgoing Governments, have priority matters to deal with, sometimes as a matter of urgency. I am certain that if the Bill was not passed before Easter, it would be the early part of next year before it became law. This is why I was anxious to have a speedy passage of the Bill through both Houses.

Usually, we are criticised for not producing legislation. There are frequent inquiries as to the whereabouts of this, that or the other Bill. Yet, when a Bill is produced, some Members are critical of the fact we want to expedite its legislative passage.

We had a good, informed debate in the Seanad, without a guillotine. I committed to taking on board a number of the suggestions made, in particular those made by Senators Ryan and Henry, and to report back to the Seanad. There was no gap between Committee Stage and Report Stage in the Seanad and I gave an undertaking with regard to what I thought were very sensible suggestions. Obviously, they have to be passed by the parliamentary draftsman and the office of the Attorney General, whose advice I am obliged to take.

The small group of officials to whom I referred include Mr. Colm Desmond, Mr. Tom Monks and Mr. Thomas McGuinn, who is the former chief pharmacist at the Department. Mr. McGuinn has been working on this and other matters relating to pharmacy at the Department on a contract basis and we are fortunate to have his expertise and experience at our disposal. It was very much needed in the preparation of the Bill.

There is a reason two Bills are required. In an ideal world, it all could have been done in one Bill but very separate sets of issues are involved. The next Bill will deal with premises, services and the logistics of the pharmacy business and profession whereas this Bill essentially deals with regulatory matters. It was important this be dealt with given that Ireland effectively has no fitness to practise regime for pharmacists. The Bill will repeal 1875 and 1962 legislation which is well out of date and very unsatisfactory. The society does not have the capacity or power to regulate the profession of pharmacy appropriately for 2007, the 21st century or beyond.

Pharmacy attracts the brightest people in the country. It is extremely difficult to get into pharmacy school even with the introduction of the second school. This year, we will produce 160 graduates where we used to produce only 70. Many of our people who wanted to be pharmacists went outside Ireland to train and qualify and when they returned, could never open, supervise or own their own businesses. I felt this was grossly unfair, which is why I changed the law and accepted the recommendation of the review group to end the derogation against Irish pharmacists. Obviously, one cannot discriminate against other EU and EEA citizens. The fact that we are, I believe, the first country in Europe to do this does not mean we should not do so. We were the first country to introduce the smoking ban, a very good initiative on another health matter. Several countries have followed suit. It is the right thing to do and will ensure that our people can open a business here if they wish to do so. Obviously, there must be language and forensic competency. Those who come from the EU or EEA must be registered automatically and the society will have some time to allow them to acquire the necessary language competency and so on. Those from outside the EU or EEA must acquire the competency in advance of registration, which is an important distinction.

I will answer a few points made before I deal with one or two other issues. The issue of the contract discussions was raised by Deputy Gormley in particular and by others. It is the case that legal advice in the first instance provided by the wholesale sector during the discussions between it, the HSE and the Department on contract arrangements suggested it would be a breach of competition law to fix prices in negotiations of that kind. Clearly, one can agree prices with one's own employees, like nurses, doctors or those in direct employment with us, but it would be a breach of competition law to do so in respect of those not in our direct employment. That advice was upheld by the Attorney General, the legal advisers to the HSE and so on. A process chaired by Bill Shipsey SC has now been put in place which I was delighted to be able to encourage and facilitate. As I understand it, the profession is happy this is the case and the role of the Shipsey process is to agree the ground rules for the negotiations on a new contract of employment. I hope we can have that in place as quickly as possible.

Deputy Twomey mentioned competence assurance. According to section 7(1)(d), one of the principal functions of the society is "to ensure that pharmacists undertake appropriate continuing professional development, including the acquisition of specialisation". To be fair and frank, competence assurance is not as well developed between the society and Department or, to the best of my knowledge, within the society as, for example, it is in the Medical Council so it will take some time. However, the power exists in the legislation to bring forward a competence assurance, which everyone would acknowledge is extremely important.

I had an opportunity to check the press briefing of my press officers, which Deputy McManus mentioned to me privately yesterday. Deputy McManus tabled an amendment to the Medical Practitioners Bill 2007 to remove all patient representation on the Medical Council. I made no issue of this and accept in good faith that Deputy McManus subsequently indicated that the amendment was being withdrawn.

My active press people decided to make the media aware of this which they thought was significant. This happens in the normal course of politics. I acknowledge that while I was dealing with the Bill at the Select Committee on Health and Children, for which two days were assigned, Deputy McManus was on the airwaves saying she did not have enough time even though one of the days was not used at all. To be fair, maybe in the cut and thrust of politics, we say things about each other——

See this speech in context