Camillus Glynn (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister. I commend her on introducing this important legislation, which is in keeping with her reforming role within the Department. She has stepped into the breach where others have feared to tread. A review of the existing pharmacy legislation was needed, since it has been on the Statute Book for more than 130 years. A Bill was introduced in 1962, which provided for restrictions on those who practised pharmacy. Given that Ireland is now a multicultural society and it is a member of a large political bloc, it is ludicrous that the provisions of the 19th century legislation should still be in vogue.

A number of issues have prompted the introduction of this legislation, not least of which is the question of separating responsibilities, to which the Minister referred, and we have all received representations about the conflict of interest issue. It would be highly improper if those who prescribe could also dispense. The PRG recommended that this should not happen and this was underwritten and endorsed by the IPU. I am delighted, therefore, that the Minister has taken on board the recommendation. The terminology of the proposed Government amendment will be interesting but I am sure it will be appropriate, given the Minister's thoroughness in other areas.

I refer to the issue of ordering drugs on-line. While the Minister proposes to deal with this under new legislation concerning the Irish Medicines Board, war must be declared on this practice. I have spoken to a number of pharmacists who believe that the entities supplying drugs on-line are perpetrating a clear fraud. They augment drugs with certain established components to achieve a specified effect and while batch A might be fine, batch B could comprise totally different components and may not be effective. In other words, if one wants medicines, one goes to a doctor for a prescription which is dispensed by a qualified pharmacist. It will be difficult to stop the practice but if there is the political will, it can be done. It will involve all agencies.

The Bill clears the way for people from outside the country to participate in the pharmaceutical profession, which is very important. This is now a multicultural society. There is much expertise in mainland Europe of which we can avail, which is very important.

Section 2 defines "retail pharmacy business" as excluding a medical or dental practice. Should that not also include a veterinary practice? This is especially important since the definition of "medical product" includes veterinary medical products.

Section 7(2)(b) states that the society shall have power to impose sanctions on pharmacists or pharmacy owners. It is not compulsory under the fitness to practise provisions laid out in the Bill for the society to have an inquiry. Can it impose sanctions without holding an inquiry and under what circumstances?

Where the council draws up codes of conduct for pharmacists, why must it submit a draft to the Competition Authority for its opinion? What expertise does the Competition Authority have on the ethics of pharmacy? Can a convicted criminal, who is not a pharmacist, own a pharmacy?

Section 18(1)(k) states that pharmacies must have counselling areas. Does this apply to new pharmacies only? Are the regulations retrospective? Are existing pharmacies supposed to install counselling areas? If so, how long will they have to do so? Does section 29(f) conflict with section 17(5)(a)?

In regard to section 35(2), should a complaint made to the council not be in the form of a sworn affidavit? In regard to section 38(4), is it not compulsory under High Court rules for the pharmacist or pharmacy owner to give the committee information?

In regard to section 46(1)(d), is there a lifetime of admonishment? Does it disappear off the record after a period of time? Will an admonishment be held against the pharmacist if he or she tries to move to another state? In other words, will he or she pay ad infinitum for the sins of the past?

In regard to section 64, notice shall be given for a full inspection or audit. It is acceptable to have a spot check without notice but not a full inspection. These are some of the questions which arise in respect of this Bill with which I am sure the Minister will deal in the fullness of time.

The Minister said it all in her contribution, including what the Bill will do and how it will move forward. The Bill gives details of membership, governance, accountability, registration, the carrying out of retail pharmacy business, pharmaceutical assistants and holding oneself out to be a registered pharmacist. People take time out of their lives to undergo a very protracted course, namely, pharmacy, and their professional qualification should not be undermined by chancers. The removal of the derogation is a very important component of this Bill. The Minister alluded to the amendment she proposes to table and Senator Browne and I repeated that, if only to underline it. This is very important legislation which, as the Minister said, brings pharmaceutical practices in this country into the 21st century.