Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)

I am happy to oblige Senator Browne. Many of the amendments were made in the Dáil on the basis of suggestions by Senators. These include the name in Irish of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, substituting "pharmacy school" for "faculty" and ensuring that when pharmacists are elected by the society, they are automatically nominated by the Minister, which was always the intention. All these matters were addressed in Dáil amendments on foot of the Seanad debate. A number of other amendments are technical in nature, involving commas and spelling changes. For example, the "e" was left out of "judgement".

Senator Ryan or Senator Henry asked whether a doctor giving evidence to a fitness to practise committee would have immunity. We have ensured that will be the case by making an amendment to that effect.

With regard to the sections pertaining to conflict of interest and fitness to practise, we would all acknowledge that the decision to prescribe should not be contaminated by any beneficial interest in a pharmacy business. After legal advice from the Attorney General, the view was taken that legal effect could best be given to this matter by way of conflict of interest provisions in the legislation. These were introduced on Committee Stage in this House, as I had indicated when the Bill was published. A lengthy debate took place and Members in both Houses of the Oireachtas were contacted.

The intention was never to stop landlord and tenant arrangements. Anybody in this country can own property and rent it out at normal market rates. We never sought to prohibit that, although it was suggested that we did. It was also suggested that we might foster ambiguity through the use of the word "economic" and that "commercial" might be a more appropriate word. I asked the Attorney General to advise on the matter and he felt "commercial" was the more appropriate word because, if somebody rents a premise, it is an economic relationship.

In a business with two partners, whether two doctors or two pharmacists, the Seanad amendments provide that both partners can be brought before the fitness to practise committee where one behaves unethically, which is clearly unfair to the person who has not transgressed. We have provided that where a partner becomes aware of unethical behaviour, he or she has 21 days to report it to the regulator. If the partner is unaware or knows nothing, he or she cannot be brought before the fitness to practise committee in respect of the activities of his or her partner. I consider that fair and reasonable.

Under the rubric of fitness to practise, we have given strong powers regarding unethical behaviour to the Medical Council and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland in regard to doctors and pharmacists, respectively, to ensure some of the behaviour we have heard about in this country can be properly investigated. If the behaviour is found to recur, the society can take the ultimate step of having a practitioner struck off. However, the legal bar will have to be high because the decision will have to stand a test in the courts.

What we are doing in regard to this Bill is appropriate and ethical and will ensure prescribing and dispensing are not connected through any beneficial commercial arrangement. Most people accept the Government's decision in that regard.