Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to pick up on Senator Cullinane's point. The price decay graph is a trade term used in the case of generic drugs. Typically, the graph flattens out at approximately 20% of the original brand price, representing an 80% reduction, which would be welcomed by the Minister of State and everyone in the House. This appears to be much larger than any figure mentioned. I regret that there was no regulatory impact statement with the Bill because this would have allowed us to know the extent of these savings, which would have helped the Minister of State in her quest to drive them. In her speech on 19 July when she introduced the Bill on Second Stage, the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, referred to a saving of €34 million in 2011 from a bill of €2.3 billion. That is only 1.5%, and I have heard elsewhere that we were getting reductions of only 2% on generic drugs.

Is that sector now beginning to protect itself in the same way that the patented drugs sector did at the beginning? At least the latter group had the excuse that it was doing very valuable research.

I am worried by a reference in section 24(4), which states that "the Executive may use a competitive process". Perhaps, arising from what Senators have said, the Minister of State might consider amending that on Report Stage so it provides that "the Executive shall use a competitive process". These people will not compete unless they are compelled to do so. If this sector sees that the HSE "may use a competitive process", it will state "Thanks very much".

The gains seem to be very large. I hope we are getting them from both patented and generic drugs. If we can achieve reductions of up to 80%, it will relieve an awful lot of the problems in the health service. If it is necessary to make people compete in order to attain that, I will support an amendment to that effect on Report Stage.