Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Dec 1954

Vol. 147 No. 9

Medical Practitioners Bill, 1954— Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 1:

1. Before Section 5, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The council may prepare and establish a register to be known as the Register of Visiting Postgraduate Medical Students.

(2) Where the council is satisfied—

(a) that a person is or intends to be in the State for the purpose of obtaining a qualification (other than a qualifying diploma) in medicine, surgery or midwifery granted by any of the colleges or bodies mentioned in the Second Schedule to the principal Act, and

(b) that such person holds a degree or diploma which, in the opinion of the council, affords sufficient guarantee that he possesses the requisite knowledge and skill for the efficient practice of medicine, surgery and midwifery and passed the examination appropriate for obtaining such degree or diploma,

the council may, upon such person's making the prescribed application and paying such fee as may be prescribed with the consent of the Minister, register such person in the Register of Visiting Postgraduate Medical Students.

(3) A person registered under this section shall cease to be so registered upon his obtaining the qualification in respect of which he was so registered or on such earlier date as may be determined by the council at its discretion.

(4) Sections 15 and 22 and sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Principal Act shall apply in relation to the Register of Visiting Postgraduate Medical Students in like manner as these provisions apply in relation to the Register of Medical Practitioners.

(5) The name of a person registered in the Register of Visiting Postgraduate Medical Students shall be deemed to be included in the Register of Medical Practitioners for the purposes of any requirement of the college or body granting the qualification in respect of which he was registered in the Register of Visiting Postgraduate Medical Students and for no other purpose.

The purpose of this amendment is to permit the registration in a separate register of doctors holding foreign degrees who wish to acquire qualifications in this country. Some of these doctors would not be working in hospitals here and so would not come within the scope of Section 3 of the Bill. This amendment would enable them to be registered for the purpose of obtaining a higher degree but it will not confer on them any right to work in their profession here as soon as they obtain the higher degree.

What exactly is meant in sub-section (5) by "for the purposes of any requirement of the college or body..."?

That is in relation, say, to a postgraduate course. The educational authorities —including, of course, the Medical Registration Council—may, and do, prescribe regulations relating to students who do postgraduate courses here. They provide at the moment that a student must be on the register and it is in order to comply with these provisions that this amendment is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

I suggest that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 be taken together. Separate decisions can be taken on them, if necessary.

I move amendment No. 2, which stands in the name of Deputy Esmonde:—

To delete sub-section (1).

These amendments relate to that part of the section dealing with the accounts of the council and the audit thereof. Following on the passing of the 1927 Act, there was an interim period when the medical council received State assistance. Then there was some necessity for the Minister to inquire into the public moneys which were used. However, that actual period lasted only for something like 12 months and for very many years no public moneys have been used at all. It seems now that it is unnecessary to ask the Minister and to put the State to the expense of auditing the accounts of a council— which are purely a domestic matter— which the council is quite capable of doing itself. We feel that the present desire of the Ministers of this Government to divest themselves of what I might describe as any powers of interference in purely domestic matters such as these should lead the Minister to accept this particular amendment.

I think the Deputy is dealing with amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, is he?

I suggest that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 be discussed together at this stage. Amendment No. 4 covers amendment No. 5.

It is true, as Deputies have said, that, unlike the situation envisaged by the 1927 Act, the intention behind this Bill is to remove controls from the council and enable them to conduct their own affairs. From my point of view I have no very definite views one way or the other in favour of Section 5 or in favour of the amendment to delete the section. I am impressed by what Deputy Dockrell has said; if it will meet the Deputy's point of view, I will have the matter examined between this and the Report Stage in order to meet the objection to the inclusion of the section.

Amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Section 5, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 6:—

To delete sub-section (3).

For the reasons I have already mentioned, I think the Minister should divest himself of powers of interference and, in lieu of sub-section (3), he should put in a new sub-section as follows:—

Section 19 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of "with the approval of the Minister" wherever these words occur.

With regard to this amendment, under the section the Minister retains power to approve of the amount of the registration fees fixed by the council. That same provision applies in the case of dentists, nurses, pharmaceutical chemists, veterinary surgeons and a variety of professional bodies of that kind. In each case the body is given a monopoly in the registration of members of the profession and power is given concurrently to charge fees. Since the monopoly is given in registration and the power to charge fees the interests of the public, perhaps to a very limited extent but nevertheless to a certain extent, are affected and for that reason I feel the Minister should have some power to express a view as to the amount of fees to be charged. That is done with the veterinary surgeons, the dentists, the nurses and also in the Bill we have just been discussing relating to the solicitors' profession. In that Bill also power of approval of fees is retained by the Chief Justice. I feel I cannot accept the amendment. I think the very minimum the Minister should have is the right to approve of whatever fees the council may seek to charge.

Might I intervene, somewhat unusually, at this stage in order to ask the Dáil to take another view of this matter? All this stems from the 1927 Medical Practitioners Act. When that Act was passed in 1927 public money was being devoted to or given over to the Medical Registration Council. It was for that reason that this heavy apparatus of State control was put down upon that particular body. Now we have got to the stage— actually that stage was reached a year after the passage of the 1927 Act in the case of the medical practitioners —when the provision of public money has ceased. It is quite right to say that the Dentists Act is the same as this; that again stems from the same circumstances as those relating to the medical practitioners. The Dentists Act was passed a year later and again there was provision for public money because for the first year during which the dentists were writing up their register staff had to be appointed ahead of their being entitled to get any revenue by way of fees. The same is true of the Veterinary Surgeons Act.

What the Minister has said is correct. To my mind the movement should be not to throw this back into the middle of 1927 but rather to bring the veterinary surgeons and the dentists into the new provision; that is to say, since they are not being provided with any public moneys they should be left entirely free. The situation that has developed since the 1927 Act is, of course, absurd: it means that there is some group of civil servants—as far as the present measure is concerned it is the Department of Health—engaged for the last 27 years in looking after bodies which should have been completely and entirely independent. They are not being provided with public funds and their duties are the duties germane to professional associations of responsible people. They should be allowed to do these things on their own, clear of governmental and Civil Service control. Two Ministers were in turn approached in connection with this particular point, and the Minister who was Minister for Health in January, 1948, wrote to the Medical Registration Council, to say that as far as he was concerned, he would give them an opportunity to put their house in order. In the latter part of that year, a general letter of application came to me as Minister for Finance, and I replied that as long as the legislation was there, various applications would have to be made to me, but I regarded them as the merest formality, and I hinted that I intended to change the law as soon as I could.

Section 19 of the Principal Act, into which the Minister seeks to put "the Minister", has to deal with the making of regulations by the council. Here are the things which the council is entitled to do. They may by regulation do each of the following things, and I suggest these are the things which a body like the Medical Registration Council should be entitled to do. The council, it can well be imagined, is a very responsible body, having, as it has, representatives from the National University, from Trinity, from the College of Surgeons and from the Apothecaries' Hall, two representatives from the Government and a certain number of people appointed by the profession. You could not consider a more sober body than one constituted in that way. They are entitled by regulations to prescribe all or any of the following things: (a) the procedure of the council at its meetings and otherwise; (b) the returns to be made to the council in respect of elections of direct representatives or of persons to fill casual vacancies by returning officers to such elections; (c) the maintenance and keeping generally of the register. Here the Minister creeps in because the Act says: "and with the approval of the Minister, the form of the register."

I put it to the Deputies here in 1954 to ask themselves what the Minister for Health or this Dáil would know about the form of such a register? Should that not be the function of the members of the Medical Registration Council? I suggest it is a peculiarly bad type of interference, to have this House interfering with the form in which the register should be kept. Yet that is one of the things for which it is proposed the approval of the Minister should be obtained. The Act also gave the council power to prescribe by regulation, the form and mode of application for registration in the register and the evidence to be given on such application of the title of the applicant to be registered and, in paragraph (e), the form and mode of application for the entry of additional qualifications.

Now we come to paragraph (f) and this is the place where the present Bill seeks to put in the Minister where he is not now. Paragraph (g) deals with the preparation, printing, publication and sale generally of the Medical Register and again it says: "with the approval of the Minister, the form of the Medical Register". Again I ask what has the Minister got to do with the form in which the council will prepare, print and publish the register? You have, then, in the next paragraph, power given to the council to make regulations prescribing the conduct of and proceedings at inquiries into the conduct of registered persons. I have left out (f). Paragraph (f) says that the council may prescribe, "subject to the provisions of this Act, the fees to be paid for the registration of persons and the entry of additional qualifications in the register". It is now proposed to put in the Minister there. Again I ask what has the Minister to do with this? It is said that he has a function because there is public interest involved in regard to fees. But remember these are not the fees that medical practitioners charge their patients. These are the fees to be paid to enable a person to get on the register. The only revenue practically that this council has is derived from these fees. It is the only revenue they got over the years, apart from some few investments from which they receive income by way of rent from certain premises. Ninetenths of the revenue they derive is by way of registration fees.

I cannot understand what is the necessity for having ministerial control over these matters. If there is any grievance in regard to fees for registration the members of the medical profession are the people who will see to that. They have control of that body which they exercise through the elections held every five years. I suggest there is no necessity for putting in the Minister here.

It is suggested in the amendment moved by Deputy Dockrell on behalf of Deputy Esmonde that the Minister should be cleared out of Section 19 of the Act. It has been said that the same provision applies in regard to other professions. I agree that it was necessary to put it in the Act of 1927 but the circumstances were then entirely different and the time has gone when such powers should be exercised by the Minister. It has been said that solicitors' fees have been prescribed as in the Bill which has just passed the Dáil. They may be but one of the things about which we were very careful in that legislation was to remove the Minister from it. It has been left to the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice ranks as part of the profession, though he may be said to belong to another side of it. I doubt if there is a modern example of this type of legislation in regard to this type of body in which ministerial control is sought to be maintained. It is a relic of the old days. I was responsible for the previous Acts and I know the conditions under which these provisions were inserted in 1927 and 1928. The circumstances which then prevailed have entirely disappeared. I think modern conditions dictate that bodies such as this should look after their own affairs.

Major de Valera

There is a certain confusion in my mind. Do I understand the Minister and the Attorney-General to be ad idem in this or is the Attorney-General insisting on something that the Minister does not wish to accept?

Major de Valera

It is an extraordinary position and I am sure I cannot recollect anything like it before. The Attorney-General urged as far as I understand that ministerial control in reference to this medical body be deleted from this Bill on the grounds that no public moneys are involved. Speaking for myself, personally, I think there is a certain amount of sound principle in that. I do not appreciate the Minister's attitude. The Minister is apparently not willing to accept this amendment and that is why the Attorney-General has intervened. That is the position as I see it.

The Deputy is not forgetting that I am a Deputy of this House as well?

Major de Valera

I am not forgetting it. Of course, the Deputy is a member of the House, but I am aware that he is also the legal adviser to the Government as Attorney-General. I can see that an extraordinary situation has arisen here. For once there is another Deputy in the House who agrees with the principle which the Attorney-General has put forward.

Who is the legal adviser to the Opposition?

Major de Valera

I do not know who happens to occupy that position, but it is certainly not I. In the situation that has arisen the House would want to see what are the reasons behind it. It rather surprises me to find the particular Minister rejecting the prima facie case made by the Attorney-General because as in the case of the Local Government Bill, to my mind the less of this type of business that we saddle the central administration with the better. In modern times the demand is for a certain balance in these things. There must be co-ordination and there should not be a gobbling up of all powers by the central authority. The Attorney-General has made a case in principle that would be acceptable to a large number of people. The case in a nutshell is this. There are no public funds involved and this is a body that is capable of controlling its own affairs, and because there are no public funds involved, there is no legitimate reason why in this particular matter the central Executive or the Civil Service in particular should deal with it and, therefore, he thinks that the body in question should be free. I must say, prima facie, there appears to be a great deal to be said for that, particularly in modern circumstances. Perhaps I am expressing a personal view in that. It definitely is my own personal view in the matter and a very strong personal view but, as I have said already, there must be some very strong reasons in this particular instance as to why the Minister will not see fit to accept the amendment. It seems to me all the more extraordinary—and I think I am entitled to comment on it objectively—to find the Minister and the Attorney-General, be he in his capacity as a Deputy or otherwise, having this out here, so to speak. If the matter could not be resolved to mutual satisfaction within the team, it seems an extraordinary situation. Therefore, I think, there is very good reason for me to ask that the Minister will make us a very full statement on this matter as to why he wants to keep it.

I would like to supplement what the Attorney-General said. In the case of the solicitors, there is a power in the Chief Justice. Quite right. But we must remember that solicitors are officers of the court—are they not—and the Chief Justice would be, very naturally, apart from anything else, the person. So that you cannot argue that case and the solicitor's case is no argument at all. In fact, every solicitor, as an officer of the court, is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice. In the case of the dentists the reason is given already and the very simple answer is the one already given, namely, if the thing is an anachronism and past its proper time, then let us deal with that case too.

I do not think I should say very much because, quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised and a little bit in the dark in that. I can only believe there must be some very strong reasons on the part of this particular Minister in failing to accept what is proposed here.

I would like to support what Deputy McGilligan or the Attorney-General, according to which function he is discharging at the moment, has said with regard to the removal from some of the paragraphs of Section 19 of the principal Act of the words "with the approval of the Minister", but I am not so sure that I can follow him when he resists the Minister's amendment to put some such proviso into paragraph (f). I think my own view would be that I support both the Minister's amendment and the amendment of Deputy Dockrell in so far as the second amendment by the Deputy seeks to take out from the other paragraphs "with the approval of the Minister". But, as the Minister has mentioned, paragraph (f) in a way, has a certain element of public interest. The Attorney-General said: "Could you imagine the medical profession would put on large registration fees?" It could be possible.

If it is possible why should they not be allowed to do it?

I do not know why it should be permissible for a sort of closed shop to raise the ante. It might be a very dangerous thing to allow. This is a very free democracy where every man, poor or rich, has a right to select his profession and the State helps people to become qualified in the professions. I do not see why those already in a particular profession should now be given a right to put a high step in front of anyone who is being qualified in that profession. There is that possible danger. As the Attorney-General mentioned, the amount of interference which has taken place under Section 19 of the principal Act was the minimum and I would certainly urge the Minister to stand fast with regard to this matter.

Would you like the registration of solicitors, barristers and everybody else brought under the control of the Minister? You must logically.

Major de Valera

Go a little bit further. Add all trade unions. It would be just as logical to add trade unions as well as anybody else.

Whether the Attorney-General is concerned with other matters or not I do not know but at the moment I am only concerned with this particular Bill and I think there is a possible danger that those already in this particular profession might put a big hindrance in the path of someone seeking to enter the profession.

They do not need to do it by money demands. They can raise the standards of the qualifications.

Very good. The State contributes towards the education of those who cannot afford to educate themselves. The State has an interest and the public has an interest. I do not see any reason at all why some safeguard should not be put into this paragraph. I think that is very good. On the other hand I also certainly agree that the other paragraphs which contain some such provision should be amended by getting rid of that because there does not seem to be any point why the Minister should have to approve of the form of a register. Apparently he has to approve of it twice. I do think the Minister ought to stick to his amendment.

That would be the only power he has then.

I did think, as Minister for Health, when introducing this little Bill, that there would not be much difficulty. Apparently it is to be the experience of Ministers for Health that they run into unexpected troubles from unexpected sources.

Major de Valera

Do not blame us.

Apparently Deputy de Valera is astonished that Deputy McGilligan should have a point of view opposite to mine on this matter.

Major de Valera

I am not in the least but I thought it might be resolved before it came in here.

Deputy McGilligan informed me of his views before I came in here. I said I could not agree with him. I said that this is the place to state them and Deputy McGilligan has done that. But, getting down to what is exactly the position, Deputy de Valera, I think following the line of Deputy McGilligan, appears to regard this Bill as a Bill designed to impose controls on the Medical Registration Council whereas in fact it is a Bill designed to remove controls from the Medical Registration Council. At the moment, under Deputy McGilligan's legislation, the Medical Registration Council is fettered down with ministerial controls from the Department of Finance. Those controls were embodied in the 1927 Act, repeated in the Medical Practitioners Act, 1951.

I have proposed to the House a Bill to remove all such ministerial controls from the registration council and to leave them as they are, a vocational body representative of the medical profession, with duties to register and to prescribe registration standards for medical schools. In doing that and in carrying out their functions they should be divorced completely from any Civil Service control. That is done in this Bill. The only thing I have said is: "Remember that under the law of this country no medical man, no person knowledgeable in medicine or medical matters may practise unless he is registered." That is unlike Deputy McGilligan's profession and Deputy de Valera's. It is permissible to practise at the Bar without being a member of the Law Library. The call to the Bar, without any registration fees, entitles both Deputy McGilligan and Deputy de Valera to practise. Passing one's final medical examination and getting a degree from the university does not entitle a graduate to practise.

In order to practise, he must get on the Irish register, and to get on the register he must pay an appropriate fee. The Minister does not define or state the fee but, as I stated a few minutes ago, in so far as the public interest is affected, and it may be only to a slight degree, it does seem reasonable that the Minister should be asked—should be consulted—with regard to what fees are to be chargeable. I feel that Deputy McGilligan and Deputy de Valera, who have joined together in this matter, are exaggerating about what is in fact a usual provision in relation to every profession which gets a monopoly by the conferring of registration. I cannot think of any other profession where this does not apply. The other professions I have mentioned—the dental profession, the veterinary profession, the pharmaceutical chemists—these are the few that occur to my mind— all these cases the responsible Minister—the Minister for Health and the Minister for Agriculture—are empowered to approve of the fees being charged for registration. I cannot see what is wrong with it. That is the only element of ministerial control being retained; everything else has been removed.

Major de Valera

And we have been tending so much in the opposite direction! We have had a long battle on the Local Government Bill, for instance, against the unnecessary intervention of the executive in either individual or collective affairs, and it is for that reason—it is on that principle—that I want to throw in my lot with other people who desire to guard against unnecessary control. I agree the Minister for Health has tended otherwise but I should like to make another comment. We have rather got into the habit of thinking that because something might happen we have to do it. I have heard the case made on the amendment but we seem to forget that we have the power in this House and that the Dáil has the power to deal with anything when it arises as quickly as a controlling Minister. That is something to bear in mind.

The Minister has accused us of vague fears—that the psychology behind this is vague fears. Let us rule that out. There is another point which is perhaps a point of instinctive fairness. Why take certain bodies and prescribe for them, and why leave other bodies severely alone? Why should sauce for the goose not also be sauce for the gander? There are certain organisations where it would be in the public interest perhaps to take precautions. Mark the word "perhaps"; it is a very definite qualification, but we are dealing here with the principle of things. Why go for certain professional bodies and certain organisations in these matters and why leave others aside?

Are you suggesting that the Minister's interference is punitive as distinct from protective?

Major de Valera

No. I think in this case the Minister is keeping a whole profession in a watered-down provision——

Protective interference.

Major de Valera

Why keep this sort of provision in connection with medical, pharmaceutical and solicitors' professions in some cases, and strenuously, carefully and assiduously avoid it in connection with other bodies? A lot of our past legislation has had that mark—that we have been rather prone to legislating for certain interests and not for others. But I am afraid I am going very wide afield in all this. The way I should like to put this to the Minister is that there is more or less some very good reason for keeping the ministerial finger in the pie here. In modern days of modern tendencies this is being done with greater frequency. If there is no very good reason for this it is all the more reason for keeping the finger out of the pie where it is not necessary.

I think that is the fairest way of putting it. This particular amendment is only a very trivial matter but what is going to happen is, in fact, that the medical people will arrange their own affairs and the Minister will give an automatic approval, as Deputy McGilligan pointed out. But why should the Minister have to go through the motions? Why should he retain the legal right of intervention when it is not necessary? I would put the matter —I am, of course, talking for myself only—on a question of principle and would be inclined to say to the Minister: "This power does not really matter to you". I agree that the Minister has made a very good move. We have been pressing the Minister for Local Government—and, incidentally, the Minister for Health is involved in it through the phrase "appropriate Minister"—in another Bill where there are powers of control being vested in the Minister for Health as well as others and in which the case is being made that these powers are necessary. The situation has become one in which the Executive is taking more and more powers into itself and giving so little back. If this is an opportunity for giving back even token powers the Minister would be doing a good day's work.

Has Deputy de Valera read this Bill, I wonder? As the Minister has pointed out, most of the Bill is giving back powers.

Major de Valera

Quite, but the more powers that are given back the better.

Would the Minister agree to remove from Section 19 of the principal Act the words "with the approval of the Minister"? He did not deal with that possibility at all and, personally, I think he should on sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Bill. I am not at all impressed by Deputy de Valera on the subject but I am always suspicious when I see members of the profession jumping up and looking for a row.

Major de Valera

You have chosen a very poor example in me. I have no professional interests in the matter.

But he is a professional man.

And free from ministerial control in that profession in the same way as I am.

Major de Valera

The Attorney-General is very right to show his capacity for freedom.

Might I point out what the Minister has already said with regard to sub-section (3) of Section 6 in the present Bill? The Minister proposes to discharge a function which I consider is an inevitable function of the Minister as representing the public interest.

What is that function?

Protecting aspiring members of the profession on behalf of the public.

Would you think it odd that for 27 years they had not that protection? Why introduce it now? For 27 years the fees could be raised.

Major de Valera

Why do it in this instance when it is not done in other cases?

You might as well say, why amend any Bill.

If there was a possibility of the necessity arising; it has not emerged in 27 years.

That does not mean it might not emerge to-morrow.

If you are going to legislate against all possibilities, you do not know where you will end.

I cannot see it is doing the provision any harm.

It is really a trivial matter. Why not have the whole thing cleaned up once and for all?

I cannot see how it could be any annoyance. I think it would be a public safeguard.

The public safeguard is required in 1954 in respect of something which has carried on at least in this matter without a shadow of control, when there has not been a whimper from anybody about the public interest being affected, when there has not been a whimper of complaint from the profession to the council itself with regard to the way they operated in respect of the fees to be discharged. It has been stated that there are other professions hampered in this way. We should relieve these people from that same sort of control if that control be there. I am not sure if it is there in regard to dentists or the veterinary people in respect of fees of registration. I would be surprised if it is because I have carried through most of these 1927 and 1928 Acts.

If controls on minor matters like this in regard to the fees for registration are put in the hands of a member of the Government, you bring in some group of civil servants or some form of supervision. The Vocational Organisation Commission, when it reported with regard to the professional bodies and more particularly with regard to the doctors and dentists, as well as the two branches of the legal profession, held them up for public approval as models of the real type of vocational organisation. It was said that they had shortcomings and suggestions were made. One of the things which the Solicitors Bill has done is to provide for some of these deficiencies which the commission said vocational bodies should correct, better education for their members and also text-books. That has been attended to in the piece of legislation we have just passed. If there is a representative from Trinity, from the National University, from Surgeons, from the Apothecaries' Hall, and two representatives of the Government side on that board to report back to the Government anything that is going on, there is that amount of supervision. There are also representatives of the doctors practising in the country. Is that not a body we should at least trust that they will behave properly in regard to this minor matter of charging a fee for people going on the register? If we allow ourselves to be obsessed with fears, we do not know what might happen; we will be providing ministerial, governmental and Civil Service control of all sorts of bodies that are now free.

I suppose there are people who would like to exert control over barristers. We have a group of people looking after our affairs and they are a very good group. Nobody has ever seen their accounts except members of the profession, and only a very select circle of members of the profession. But the accounts are produced and audited as a matter of proper business and everything goes smoothly. Originally they had to raise the charges for students as far as the law is concerned. They raised them substantially and they had a very good case. There was nobody to say: "This is going too far. You should not have raised them by"— whatever the percentage was. These bodies are operating for years along that line.

It seems to me that for the receipt of about £300 or £400 a Government exercises enormous controls. I often thought it would be a good thing on which to have a question put and on which to have statistical information. Over the years the revenue of the Medical Council has been on an average between £500 and £600. It has risen to £1,200 or £1,300 this year on account of professional registration and so on. I would not be surprised to learn that there had been as much money lifted from the public in the payment of Civil Service salaries looking after the Medical Registration Council as the entire revenue of the council in any year. I think in the year 1954 they ought to take a proper attitude towards this good body. This is a last remnant of control. They have been controlling their affairs very effectively for years, and two Ministers from different Parties approved of them. The Miniter for Health in 1948 said he would let them put their own house in order, and when they came to me in August, 1948, I said: "As long as the laws are there you have to make submissions to me. I will see that they are the merest formality." I wrote a letter in 1948 and the Minister for Health wrote also in 1948—there are also letters in this connection in 1951—to the effect: "We will free you one of these days. It is only a matter of awaiting an opportunity for legislating." The opportunity is here now and let us take the chance.

There is one final point I want to add. There is a danger that Deputies could exaggerate this into something that it is not. Remember, you are dealing with a profession. Medical practitioners in the medical profession under the laws of this land are the only persons entitled to practise medicine. It is an offence for anyone who is not a registered medical practitioner to practise medicine. That is quite right and quite proper, and the State interference through the years has been to protect the medical profession and medical practitioners from quackery and things of that kind. That is there in our law. The point of view that has been ventilated this evening by Deputy de Valera and Deputy McGilligan is to close one's eyes completely to the whole facade of the law as it applies to the practice of medicine. You cannot do that. Right through the years, with the possible exception of the Act of 1927, there has been a benevolent disposition by the State towards the protection of medical practitioners. Here, now, all the remnants of any fetters or controls of any kind are being removed from the Medical Registration Council, which represents the medical practitioners. The only thing insisted upon is that since this body has a complete monopoly and complete control in itself and in its membership of the education and the registration of persons entitled to practise, the State should be consulted with regard to the registration fees they impose. That is not because the State has any interest in what they do with their money. That particular control is removed. It is not because the Minister has any interest in the amount of fees they collect. An inquiry as to that has been removed by the Bill. The only reason for that is to ensure that the public interest be not completely forgotten about by the desirable monopoly that is created in the practice of medicine, and I think it is reasonable.

With regard to the other bodies may I say that all other professions that have a similar monopoly have registration fees which in each case must be approved of by the Minister? I am sure Deputy McGilligan will be interested to learn, with regard to veterinary surgeons, that whoever sponsored the legislation concerning the registration of veterinary surgeons was not quite satisfied that the Minister for Agriculture alone should approve of the fees—and the fees must be approved of by the Government itself.

I did that myself and I am very sorry. It was a very shocking thing to do.

Major de Valera

The Deputy wants to make amends now.

It has been on my conscience for years.

Major de Valera

Give him a Christmas present.

I feel the application of this would be too serious. Certainly, I do not think it would be right to entertain any situation where there is absolutely no say by those responsible for the people generally in regard to the amount of the fees likely to be charged. I think Deputy McGilligan raised certain points with regard to Section 19 which were supported by Deputy Sheldon and which appeared to me to have some merit. I am not at the moment briefed to deal with the effects of this, but I think Deputy McGilligan referred to sub-section (c) of Section 19 of the principal Act and sub-section (g). Both these sub-sections refer to the form of the register and the keeping generally of the register in its form, its preparation, printing and sale. It appears to me that that should be a matter entirely for the council and not one in which the Minister is directly concerned. However, as I say, I have not examined the situation—but I will.

Let the whole section stand over.

I can let the section stand over and it will come back the same as it is, but certainly I will examine the case that has been made with regard to these other two sub-sections of Section 19.

Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

This day fortnight.

Top
Share