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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 19, to delete lines 1 to 21.

My position on this group of amendments is contingent on how we deal with amendment No. 6. The Minister of State might appreciate that I am in a little dilemma because we must discuss amendment No. 5 and others, yet the fate of amendment No. 6 determines whether I press for the deletion of Chapter 2 and the first paragraph of Chapter 4. I hope the Minister of State can follow my point. For the sake of argument, however, the Irish Pharmacy Union, IPU, has proposed simplifying this Bill, particularly Chapter 2, the opening paragraph of Chapter 4, and subsequent sections that I also propose to delete. The IPU points out that in a report published by the European Commission in January 2013 as part of the assessment carried out every three months by the troika it was recommended that doctors be required to write prescriptions using the active ingredient rather than the name of the drug, patented or otherwise. It was argued that modifying the Bill in this way would assist in significantly increasing the level of generic substitution. I believe this to be a reasonable proposition and that is why I have tabled these amendments.

I will be interested to hear the Minister of State's view of what I have said and I hope he can be accommodating because, as he will appreciate, dealing with amendment No. 5 separately from amendment No. 6 will not make much sense. We need to consider seriously the broad proposition of general practitioners prescribing active ingredients, because our common aim is to increase generic substitution. The by-product of all that is to greatly reduce the high cost of medicines bought privately and using medical cards at significant cost to the Exchequer. If the means proposed in these amendments are unworkable I will revisit them. I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say on this if he is not going to allow these amendments, arguing that they are impracticable or whatever, and on the arguments in support of general practitioners' prescribing the active ingredient of the drug as against the branded name in patented medicines, or, if it is the case, the generic substitute.

See this speech in context