Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I supported the Bill on Second Stage, not because I am in favour of a charge for prescriptions but because when the an bord snip nua report was published, I was appalled at the figure of €5 proposed. The position taken by the Minister in the legislation is not unreasonable from that point of view and is a major improvement following the shock we got at that stage. I take on board the point made by Senator Fitzgerald and others that this measure might cause hardship and that is my only reservation about it. I am not sure whether the Minister can make regulations in a later part of the section we are discussing to vary the position on the basis of a financial burden or hardship being imposed. The answer is to review the measure and come back to us with the results. Also, there should be an appeals mechanism which I understand may already be in place for those experiencing hardship and poverty. Senator Feeney has made the point that there are other support structures in place that could be made available to help those who will find themselves in difficulty because of this measure.

I have stated many times in the House that there is overuse and abuse of medications, not in the sense of people shooting up but misuse. I have argued with the Minister many times about the money being wasted. Often the things people get for nothing are regarded as having no value. I realise that is the speech made by my grandmother, but there is an element of it in this instance. The perfect solution would be for the Minister to hold the charge and have an appeals structure in place. As Senator Fitzgerald said, the last thing we want is people to damage their health for the sake of 50 cent but on the other hand the Minister questions whether people would damage their health for the lack of 50 cent. A balance can be achieved in that respect.

At the weekend I spoke about aspects of the matter to somebody who works in a hospital. I was cited the example of someone living 40 or 50 miles from Dublin who had genuinely lost their child's medication. The person concerned telephoned to get a repeat prescription. It took much effort to find it and the person concerned insisted that it be sent by taxi, even though they had a car. That is the other side of the story. I am not using this story to undermine the valid arguments made by my colleagues on this side of the House but to support my position that there is a number of people who take the health service for granted and do not recognise that it is taxpayers' money. It is our money and the way it is spent is important. It is important that it is spent properly.

My point to the Minister is that it is not unreasonable to have a charge. Neither is it unreasonable to respond to the point made by Senator Fitzgerald that there be a review of the charge and that there be in place a fail-safe mechanism to ensure nobody's health will be compromised in a manner not contemplated by the legislation and certainly not by the Minister. This is a tricky one because it is about striking a balance. I would like to say I am opposed to the Bill on principle because it imposes a charge, but I find that to be an unreasonable position in terms of where we are. Rather than aiming to eliminate the charge, I hope people will be better off in the future and better able to cope with it. I, therefore, support the section.