Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

Deputy McManus referred to the late sitting. Many people have worked since 7.30 a.m. or 8 a.m. today and I wish we had a longer period to debate the legislation. However, there is a broad consensus and I do not detect great disagreement about the legislation, as everybody acknowledges the need for it. I gave a commitment, which it was important to honour, to introduce the legislation this session, and that is what I have done.

The conflict of interest issue arose in parts of the country and unethical behaviour resulted with prescribing doctors contaminated by a beneficial interest in a pharmacy. Doctors, pharmacists, Members and the public accept that is undesirable and the pharmacy review group drew attention to the need to prohibit that practice. To address this, I tabled amendments on Committee Stage in the Seanad because the Attorney General strongly advised that dealing with the conflict of interest issue by way of property related provisions would be unconstitutional and would be subject to a legal minefield that would be impossible to enforce.

I stated when the Bill was published that my intention was to table amendments, which were being prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel. However, the amendments caused confusion in that it was felt landlord and tenancy arrangement would be prohibited and, in one case, we were told the planning authorities might not grant planning approval and An Bord Pleanála could refuse an application on appeal for planning approval. Clearly, the intention is not to interfere with normal landlord tenancy arrangements. My intention is to give the regulatory bodies the power to ensure no unethical behaviour occurs among doctors or pharmacists. Pharmacists can, therefore, own medical practices and vice versa and pharmacies can be collocated with medical practices.

However, the issue in this section is prescription being affected by a beneficial interest in the profits of the pharmacy. Once normal market conditions apply, the landlord puts up his sign, advertises his premises and the highest bidder secures it, whoever that may be. If it happens to be a pharmacist, that is not an issue. My attention was drawn to a scenario where in a partnership, one partner could act unethically without the other partner being aware of it. Clearly, I do not want the other partner, who is innocent, involved in a fitness to practise inquiry and, therefore, I am introducing a provision to ensure that does not arise. Given all the circumstances, we have struck a fair balance. We have given the appropriate power to the regulatory bodies, which will eventually be tested in court. The test is a high legal bar.

Deputy Ó Caoláin and others mentioned private facilities. General practice is a private enterprise and it is supported by the State through the General Medical Service scheme. A retail pharmacy is a private enterprise which is heavily supported by the State's procurement of medication on behalf of the public. I see nothing wrong with professionals engaging in private enterprise, and whether they make a good return for their efforts by way of salary or profit is not an issue, nor is it an issue for the majority of people. The issue from a patient's perspective is quality of service. The Bill has struck the right balance and the regulatory bodies have been appropriately empowered to examine ethical issues in the way the pharmacy review group intended and many Members and the public support.

See this speech in context