Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

As Senator Ryan has acknowledged, this group of amendments effectively relates to amendments Nos. 61 and 62. Amendment No. 1 is necessitated by the new provisions we are including in respect of conflict of interest. Amendment No. 61 deals with the prohibition of certain economic relationships between pharmacists and medical practitioners, namely, either party having a beneficial interest in the other's practice, including company or corporate relationships and a relationship by way of preferential leasing or tenancy arrangements.

Amendment No. 62 deals with pharmacy and medical practices using shared premises, the type of economic relationships it is considered necessary to prohibit and also the situation where the prescriber or dispenser recommends the other's practice to a patient. We are giving powers to the society and the Medical Council to deal with conflict of interest situations which arise by way of fitness to practice.

Essentially, a pharmacist can be charged only the normal market rent for a pharmacy. If true, the extraordinary stories one hears will be brought to an end under the provisions provided for the society, as well as those pertaining to the Medical Council.

Doctors cannot recommend a particular pharmacy. Obviously, a doctor may inform patients about the opening hours of pharmacies in a particular location and a pharmacist may inform a patient of a doctor's opening hours or location. However, they are not entitled to recommend each other and where there is co-location, there will be an obligation to have separate entrances to the individual facilities. Another issue brought to my attention recently concerned a clinic that was faxing prescriptions to a particular pharmacist. All such practices will be prohibited under the strong conflict of interest provisions I have introduced.

As I noted in my Second Stage debate, I had sought to deal with this issue in a different manner. However, the Attorney General strongly advised that this was not possible and that the proposal under discussion was the appropriate route to take. I have taken this advice, which explains why the substantial amendments are being made now rather than being included in the original Bill. I had envisaged doing this somewhat differently.

In addition to the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, the Medical Council is also being given substantial powers regarding conflicts of interest that might arise in respect of medical practitioners. In the first instance, all of this is being done to ensure appropriate behaviour on the part of professionals and that economic interests will not influence what is asked of patients or the manner in which they are dealt with. This would not and cannot be acceptable.

Amendment No. 1 is simply a technical amendment to facilitate amendments Nos. 61 and 62.