Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Bill in general, and the Minister has clarified several issues. I am aware the IPU would have preferred a blanket ban on the collocation of pharmacies in primary care centres but I understand why that did not happen. I am happy we have clearly set out in the legislation that pharmacies must have separate entrances to primary care centres. I reiterate the need to introduce urgently the concept of writing clearly on a prescription that it can be used in any pharmacy in the country. This will remove any doubt about an obligation to use the nearest pharmacy. These are all important steps.

People ask what exactly is the purpose of the Bill, and I am still a bit confused. We all spoke about the need to prevent a scenario where a doctor gains financially from a prescription because of an economic relationship whereby a pharmacist rents property from the doctor or where the turnover of a pharmacy is related to the rental income. Clear conflicts of interest arise in these situations.

For everyone's sake, will the Minister clarify whether a blatant capitalist can get involved in primary care centres, establish a few doctors there and rent space to a qualified pharmacist? Does this Bill tell a doctor or a pharmacist that they cannot get involved in these areas? I imagine this would go against constitutional rights. I am sure everyone is entitled to own property and earn an income. Does this Bill state to doctors and pharmacists that they cannot own these centres or they risk going before the Medical Council or pharmaceutical society respectively?

It is important that we include a review mechanism to see how it works in practice. It would be worthwhile if a guarantee could be given today that we will review this in three years' time. The next Dáil, Seanad and Minister for Health and Children, who perhaps may be Deputy Harney again, can then see whether it has worked out as we envisages or requires further tweaking and fine-tuning.