Mary Henry (Independent)

The Minister has gone a long way towards addressing the concerns expressed by many Members during the Second Stage debate regarding both the enormous profits that can be made by individuals and public safety. As the Minister has recognised, it is essential to have a division between the prescriber and the dispenser. I am concerned as to whether the legislation will be retrospective, as a significant number of premises have already been built. For example, amendment No. 62 refers to "premises which, although separate ... are such that public access to the one is available only by way of the other, or ... share a common public entrance with each other". I know of several such arrangements. Will this provision cover them?

Key money, that is, money given to get close to health care centres in the first place, appears to have been a major issue. While it may be included in the Minister's amendment, I have not yet managed to pick it out. Key money appears to have cost between €1 million and €3 million. This would constitute a good start.

I was alarmed by a comment I read in an interview given by a former adviser to the chief executive of the Health Service Executive regarding the Touchstone project in Carlow, which Senator Browne has mentioned. He stated that in respect of the project, he was faced with the opportunity of being able to buy suites at a cost of 20% of their value. As an investment opportunity, it could not be matched by doing things privately. Who is paying the other 80%? Why are such suites being sold off so cheaply? There is no such thing as a free lunch. Such a development alarms me and I do not know whether the legislation covers it.

I am not being picky with the Minister regarding the lateness of the amendments. However, they are vitally important and at the nub of the issue. However, I cannot find a mention of either issue in them. Moreover, is it necessary to specify who will describe what constitutes reasonable rent in an area? Reasonable rent for a newsagent would not be the same as for a pharmacy, in which one stocks goods of a much higher value and so on and for which greater security is needed. This is of some concern to me.

The Minister has attempted to cover, to the best of her ability, the juxtaposition of pharmacists and doctors by getting their respective professional bodies to deal with them. However, I am concerned that the issue of key money does not appear to be covered and I am worried about the retrospective position. Who is paying for the suites being sold at such a cheap price? How will the issue of reasonable rent be worked out?