Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 24, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

"25.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person carrying on a retail pharmacy business, or any partner, connected relative or connected person, servant or agent of such person—

(a) directly or indirectly to make, offer or provide to any medical practitioner or any partner, connected relative or connected person of such practitioner, any payment, inducement, consideration in money or money's worth or financial or other benefit of any kind, in consideration of, or by way of reward for, or in any way relating to—

(i) the value or volume (or both) of medicinal products prescribed by that medical practitioner, or

(ii) the direct or indirect direction, encouragement or referral by that medical practitioner of his patients to purchase or obtain medicinal products prescribed by him or her from such pharmacist or pharmacy, or both,

(b) to enter into, or be party to, any agreement, arrangement or understanding, under which, directly or indirectly, any payment, inducement, consideration in money or money's worth or financial or other benefit of any kind, is made, offered or provided to any medical practitioner or any partner, connected relative or connected person of such practitioner, in consideration of, or by way of reward for, or in any way relating to -

(i) the value or volume (or both) of medicinal products prescribed by that medical practitioner, or

(ii) the direct or indirect direction, encouragement or referral by that medical practitioner of his patients to purchase or obtain medicinal products prescribed by him or her from such pharmacist or pharmacy, or both,

(c) directly or indirectly to make, offer or provide to any medical practitioner or any partner, connected relative or connected person of such practitioner, any payment, inducement, consideration in money or money's worth or financial or other benefit of any kind, or to enter into, or be party to, any agreement, arrangement or understanding, under which, directly or indirectly, any such payment, inducement, consideration in money or money's worth or financial or other benefit of any kind, is to be made, offered or provided to any medical practitioner, partner, connected relative, or connected person of such practitioner, the direct, or indirect consequence or effect of which would, or could, be to—

(i) increase the value or volume (or both) of medicinal products prescribed by that medical practitioner, or

(ii) cause the direction, encouragement or referral by that medical practitioner of his patients to purchase or obtain medicinal products prescribed by him or her from such pharmacist or pharmacy, or both.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "connected relative" shall have the meaning assigned to it in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to this Act, and "connected person" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 2(a) of the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001.

(3) For the purposes of this section, references to any payment, inducement, consideration in money or money's worth or financial or other benefit of any kind, shall include a reference to rent and other consideration in money or money's worth relating to the making available of premises to a person carrying on a retail pharmacy business, and references in this section to any agreement, arrangement or understanding shall include a reference to any agreement, arrangement or understanding (including a lease of premises) by means of which such premises is made available.".

There is considerable concern about making sure that an unhealthy relationship is not created between a medical practitioner and a pharmacist. This legislation is likely to be tested in the courts so it is important to make it as robust as possible.

The Minister often says that she does not want to be prescriptive but there is a danger in that approach of becoming careless and leaving openings for clever lawyers to argue successfully positions that were never intended. This amendment is quite prescriptive but it is important to consider it fairly, with a view to ensuring that its goal, which is to protect patients is achieved.

No one can have had more than a cursory glance at the other amendments in the group which came in just before we started to speak on the Bill. Some came in at 6 p.m. this evening when it was impossible to get legal advice. They seem to be doing something other than I intend because they ensure that, for example, property relations are not included in any way and saying that the pharmacist is not guilty of professional misconduct and that these are protections of the pharmacist in respect of the legislation. This is very unsatisfactory and it is difficult to be competent to judge these amendments when one has not seen them before. We are flying blind which is not a satisfactory way for parliament to scrutinise and process legislation. I regret this because I believe in the ethical basis of this Bill. This is important legislation which deserves a better and more competent Government that would have ensured it was brought in earlier.

The Minister repeatedly tells us that we will be back for a week or so after Easter. If that is the case, why are we dealing with this legislation at 10.20 p.m. with amendments that came in a couple of hours ago? If the Dáil is returning and there will be an Order of Business, the Pharmacy Bill deserves the space and time between Committee and Report Stages allowed for under the normal process. The Ceann Comhairle laid down strong guidelines for a two-week period between the publication of a Bill and Committee Stage and a reasonable time between then and Report Stage. We do not have that time. If we are coming back after Easter, what is the Minister's excuse for unnecessarily rushing through this complex Bill which directly affects patients?

See this speech in context