Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I am delighted to see the Bill and what it is based upon. It seems to me that the Minister has grabbed hold of a vast opportunity here.

I know something about generics through my grocery business. In the 1980s a French company called Carrefour introduced produits libres which people were excited about it. My company could not get over the price difference between products that were branded, advertised and promoted and the produits libres products wrapped in plain black and white packaging. My then company introduced it which led to quite dramatic benefits for the public and such lines have continued under different headings. The Bill provides a great opportunity for us.

One of my colleagues in Superquinn served on a committee in 1994 and 1995 that worked on behalf of the Department of Health and I must lay my hands on its report. Its aim was to improve purchasing and for six months a small team analysed products and not just generics. It recommended that £50 million worth of savings could be made by centralised buying. The team was amazed at what it regarded as the inefficiencies of purchase protocols at the time. There are huge opportunities to make savings today.

I have raised the issue of the cost difference between patented and generic drugs before and we have heard a lot about it tonight. I could not believe it when I learned that branded medication often costs 30 times more. A few minutes ago Senator Gilroy talked about one branded product being much more expensive than its generic equivalent in Ireland. In 2009 this country had the highest spend per person on pharmaceuticals in the OECD countries.

At present if a doctor automatically uses brand names then a chemist is obliged to dispense them rather than generic drugs that might cost a fraction of the price. Earlier we heard that it does cost a fraction of the price. There is no cost to the doctor but there is a cost to the State. I am amazed at the difference between what people pay here for drugs in pharmacies and prices charged in other countries. We heard a lot about it in this debate. The introduction of generics offers an immense opportunity to secure a reduction in costs and prices.

I am glad to see that medical card holders who choose more expensive branded medicines over cheaper generic alternatives will have to make up the difference. That is a sensible idea. It is also apparent that private patients could save money where their pharmacist suggests substituting a cheaper alternative to the medicine prescribed. Recently a friend of mine was in Austria and he was given a generic drug rather than the one identified on his prescription. He gave his prescription to the chemist who offered him an alternative generic.

Spain enacted a law that requires doctors to prescribe a generic brand where possible rather than a brand name. In turn, pharmacists are required to provide the cheapest available version of the drug prescribed. Should we follow its stringent example? Such a law would reduce leeway but may bring more savings. Italy announced measures in 2010 that included a mandatory price cut of 12.5% on generic drugs. Can we do the same here?

Can the Minister comment on a claim by some that most generic drugs are slightly different from their branded counterparts and that changes could prove fatal to people with serious health conditions such as epilepsy, asthma or those who have had an organ transplant? I am especially wary for recipients of an organ given the difficulties that they would have undergone to receive a transplant. I note that the Bill made no reference to these conditions. Do we need to make such references? Are we completely safe? Can we be safer? Is there a greater threat that the market will be flooded with counterfeit medicines?

The discovery of fake cancer drugs has increased in the US. For example, one container of the anti-cancer drug Avastin was found. It is a drug that can cost around $2,500. This year fake cancer drugs were purchased by nearly 100 doctors, mostly in California. I have called for a traceability system to be introduced to combat counterfeit medicines like the one used in Turkey, France, Italy and Belgium and piloted in Sweden. It is a barcode system that assists in the fight against counterfeit medicines and makes them easily identifiable and protects the customer. Californian law now requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to serialise drug packages by equipping them with an e-pedigree by the beginning of 2015. I know something about the system because some years ago Superquinn introduced a traceability system called IdentiGEN that was developed in Trinity College for beef traceability during the BSE scare. If it is possible to trace beef then the same can be done for drugs. We should draw attention to traceability especially as the market has been estimated to be worth €100 million. I do not know what it is worth but I am sure that it is more than that sum. Can the Minister indicate whether traceability systems employed by other countries have been studied? I am sure that they have but I would like to hear his view on the matter. I am also anxious to hear the Minister's view on the European law due to be implemented in July next year which will impose higher standards of proof of the purity of "any active pharmaceutical ingredients", the contents of medicines, which come from outside the EU. This may result in medicine shortages. There is some debate that this is an over-reaction to medicines sold via the Internet. Can the Minister comment on this legislation? Many concerns have been expressed by the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association, and I am sure the Minister will have been made aware of them. Perhaps he will refer to the concerns the association mentioned when it lobbied Members.

I am delighted with the Bill. The Minister has taken the right steps but I hope he can reply to my queries.