Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I support the three amendments in the grouping. It is arguable that others could be grouped with them. I note the single distinction between amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 4 and 18 is that the latter are particular to anti-epilepsy drugs while the former are non-specific about interchangeable and non-interchangeable medicines. While it has been pointed out that the critical focus of our concerns is anti-epilepsy drugs, there may be other areas of concern, about which we do not currently have knowledge, in which there will need to be a listing of non-interchangeable medicines.

There is a sound and practical case for making amendment No. 1 to include in the Bill a definition of "non-interchangeable medicinal products". It is a reasonable proposition for which the Bill, as presented on Report Stage, has not provided. I support the proposition. Deputy Murphy's wording fits my understanding and that of Members across the House of how non-interchangeable medicines should be defined. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are proposed in the interests of transparency. The non-interchangeable products should be listed as well as the interchangeable ones, for the latter of which provision is made. It is critical to list non-interchangeable products also as patients have an entitlement to the fullest information possible. There is also a responsibility on the State and its agencies - in this instance the Irish Medicines Board - to provide all possible clarity on the suitability or otherwise of substitution. As emphasised in amendment No. 4, the efficacy and safety of any given alternative should be clear. I hope the Minister of State will accept the rationale behind each of the three amendments being discussed together. I await hearing his reply before offering any further comment.

See this speech in context