For the reason I gave previously. We had a choice. This comes down to option 1 or option 2. We could have looked to cover GP fees-----

I am answering exactly that. Option 1 would be what Deputy Cullinane is suggesting, which is the margin for the pharmacist, the product and the GP consultations, as we have done for free contraception.

Just the pharmacists. That option would cost more money. If we had gone further than providing the medicines for free, we would, in the first instance, have had to bring in something like age bands. I do not think that would have been appropriate. I spoke to the National Women's Council about it. The view I got back was that the way we are doing it is the right way to do it, which is to make it available for everybody. Whoever is sitting in this seat next year coming into the budget should be looking at exactly thi…

I thank Deputy Cullinane. This will be a matter for various pharmacists, just as it is today. A private patient going to a pharmacist today buying HRT products-----

It is free HRT, of course it is, but we cannot expect pharmacists to prescribe without a fee or a margin. They do it today.

We have been very clear from day one that the funding is for the full cost of the medicines or devices to be covered. This is what the State is going to fund.

The cost of the medicine.

I thank the Deputies. It is the same question and the same answer. What we are doing is funding the costs of the medicines and the devices. What is not included is the GP visit, which is just as relevant. I know the Deputy is not asking about the GP visit but it is just as relevant because it is for a prescription. Half the country now has access to free GP care. For the other half there is a charge to see a GP. Similarly, there will be a dispensing charge or a prescription charge from the pharmacist. I would love …

I thank the Deputy. In a world where we were not concerned about getting this measure in place quickly and one of infinite resources, sure, but neither of those things are the case. We want to get this provision in quickly and, obviously, we have finite resources.

I am very much loath to give a figure because there may be pharmacists who would perhaps have agreed to go below that figure and who would then say that because I have said X, that is where they will go to. Just as it is now for private patients, it is a matter for pharmacists themselves to decide. I fully understand the Deputy's questions because I asked exactly the same ones as we were teasing this out.

As I said, the two overarching priorities for me were to get this in place quickly, and this is why we are shoehorning this into this Bill-----

-----and I wanted it to be available to everybody.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “PART 2 PROVISION OF MENOPAUSE PRODUCTS FOR CERTAIN WOMEN Definition (Part 2) 2. In this Part, “Act of 1970” means the Health Act 1970.”.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 3, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 47A of Act of 1970 3. Section 47A of the Act of 1970 is amended by the substitution of “62A, 67E or 67F” for “62A or 67E”.”.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 3, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “Menopause products for certain women 4. The Act of 1970 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 67E: “ 67F. (1) Subject to subsection (3), and sections 20 and 23 of the Act of 2013, the Health Service Executive shall make available for supply without charge menopause products for women who— (a) are ordinarily resident in the State, and (b) have been prescribed menopause products by— (i) a registered medi…

I move amendment No. 5: In page 3, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “Amendment of Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013 5. The Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013 is amended— (a) in section 20— (i) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “section 59, 62A, 67E or 67F” for “section 59, 62A or 67E”, (ii) in subsection (2), by the substitution of “section 59, 62A, 67E or 67F” for “section 59, 62A or 67E”, and (iii) in subsection (3), by the substitution of “section 5…

I move amendment No. 6: In page 3, to delete line 12 and substitute the following: “6. In this Part, “Act of 1994” means the Health Insurance Act 1994.”.

I thank the Deputy. We have probably discussed this aspect on a few occasions in the context of this Bill. The 6% rate was a recommendation from the Health Insurance Authority. A report was done and a range recommended between 5.5% and 8.6%. The 6%, therefore, is right down at the lower end of the range. The Deputy's question is a very fair one, why not bring it down further. The report looked around Europe and, essentially, we have to balance two things. We want more competition in the market here. We know what ha…

I thank the Deputy for that contribution. If we were to move the margin down to zero, any sector would then fold up its tent.

I think there are two sides to this point. As discussed earlier, there is the side where we have people in Ireland who have health insurance out of fear. Everything we have been doing for the past four and a half years has been to move away from that and provide a public health service we can be incredibly proud of and that gives people brilliant care when they need it. At a simple level, this is behind everything we are doing. Success for this would be seen in a reduction in people feeling the need to take out pri…