Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 1955

Vol. 153 No. 4

Opticians Bill, 1955—Second Stage.

Minister for Health (Mr. T.F. O'Higgins)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The object of the Bill is to provide for the registration of opticians and to restrict practice as opticians to registered persons.

At present a person worried about his eyes can consult either an ophthalmic surgeon or oculist (that is, a registered medical practitioner specialising in the eyes) or an optician. The opthalmic surgeon (I will use this longer name to avoid confusion between "oculist" and "optician") is, of course, fully competent to diagnose all optical defects and diseases of the eye, to treat them and to prescribe spectacles. Normally, an ophthalmic surgeon does not supply spectacles but leaves the dispensing of his prescription to an optician.

Opticians have not, as such, any medical qualification. They may be divided into two classes—ophthalmic opticians who prescribe and supply spectacles, and dispensing opticians who merely dispense the prescriptions of medical practitioners or of ophthalmic opticians.

Reputable opticians practising in this country possess the diploma of the Association of Ophthalmic Opticians of Ireland or some similar qualification. There is, however, no statutory requirement that opticians of any kind should be qualified and it is open to any person to put up a plate and to begin to practise as an optician. An optician, I would like to stress, is trained only to prescribe and supply spectacles: he has no professional competence in the treatment of diseases of the eyes. A reputable optician will refer any case of eye disease coming to his notice to a doctor.

It is well known that at present there are many unqualified persons engaged in the lucrative trade of supplying spectacles throughout the country. These persons are not at present legally debarred from describing themselves as opticians and they can—and in many cases do—prescribe and supply glasses although they have no technical training which would enable them to decide whether or not a person requires spectacles.

There are on record cases where glasses supplied by itinerant spectacle-sellers were not only unsuited to the vision of the persons for whom they were supplied, but were positively harmful to their eyesight. I have information also of cases of the supply of spectacles with plain glass, ostensibly to remedy defective vision, at prices out of all proportion to the costs of the articles supplied.

In addition to the public health aspect of the matter, there is a further one—namely, that in many cases itinerant spectacle vendors do not subsequently provide the goods for which they have been paid. Under the legislation it will be an offence to prescribe or to sell spectacles unless a person is registered on a register of opticians, and the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána has stated that this provision will considerably facilitate the Gardaí in dealing with cases such as these, examples of which have in recent years been referred to them. It might be held that persons sufficiently gullible to purchase spectacles from vendors of this nature do not deserve to be protected by legislation. While there is some merit in that argument, I prefer, however, to approach the matter on the lines that there is here a fairly big public health problem and that action of the kind I propose in the Bill now before the House is necessary to remedy it.

It is proposed to set about the eradication of the abuses with which I have dealt by establishing a board to be known as Bord na Radharcmhastóiri which will be responsible for the registration of opticians and the control of their practice. The board will consist of four medical practitioners, six opticians and a person nominated by the Minister. In the case of the first board the medical practitioners and the opticians will be nominated by the Minister after consultation with the appropriate professional bodies. When the board is set up it will make provision for the establishment of a register, and only those persons possessing qualifications approved by the board will be admitted to it. I should like to make it perfectly clear at this stage that no provision of the Bill will affect medical practitioners, who will continue, of course, to examine and prescribe for all optical diseases and defects.

We are providing in the Bill that Irish citizens at present carrying on in business here as ophthalmic opticians or dispensing opticians will be able to get on the appropriate register without examination, if their main business is from their practice as an optician, and they have had seven years' experience. Irish citizens who have been practising as opticians as a side line will also be entitled to become registered, but only if they have had certain experience— which will be specified in rules—and if they succeed in passing a limited examination, which will be held on a number of occasions during a period of two years after the registers are set up.

The board will be given power to regulate the prescribing, dispensing and sale of spectacles and to establish satisfactory standards of practice in regard to these matters. Persons who do not comply with these standards will be liable to be removed from the register and, as the prescription, dispensing and retail sale of spectacles will be confined to those opticians on the register, those who do not conform to the ethical standards laid down by the board will be prevented from making their livelihood from the sale of spectacles. We will in this manner ensure that only competent persons practising in an ethical manner will in future be allowed to prescribe and dispense spectacles; and, apart from the improvement which this will lead to in the type of glasses supplied, it will also eliminate entirely the fraudulent vendor of spectacles.

The scheme of this Bill has been the subject of detailed and prolonged negotiations between myself and my predecessor on the one hand, and the Association of Ophthalmic Opticians of Ireland on the other. That association is representative of reputable opticians and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their assistance in the preparation of this legislation and, in particular, for the spirit of compromise in which they accepted some provisions not entirely to their liking.

The scheme of the Bill was also discussed with the Irish Medical Association, as representative of the ophthalmic surgeons. While this association does not see eye to eye with me on the proposals in this Bill and made a number of suggestions in its preparation which I could not accept, I appreciate that its members have a different view in looking at the proposals and I am glad that they gave me the opportunity to appreciate it, at the cost to themselves of considerable effort and time in preparing memoranda and attending discussions. The major objection of the Irish Medical Association is to the recognition of ophthalmic opticians as persons qualified to prescribe glasses by their inclusion in the classes to which such prescribing will be restricted under the Bill. The association considers that this means that the Government is encouraging persons who wish to have their eyes examined, to consult an optician instead of a medical practitioner. I can definitely say that this was not the intention of the Government and that we do not feel that the legislation will have the effect of inducing more people to consult opticians than do so at presesnt. We must accept that a considerable number of people do go to opticians to have their eyes examined and to suggest that the contrary is the case is merely refusing to face the facts. Once this is recognised, it will, I think, be generally agreed that it is better to ensure that those opticians who are consulted and who purport to be able to supply suitable glasses should in fact be qualified to do so.

In recognising opticians to this extent we are not setting them up as persons qualified to do anything except what they are doing at present and they are specifically prohibited, by Section 45, from doing anything for the eyes but to prescribe glasses. The Bill goes no further than to recognise the de facto position and, in so doing, to make it possible to deal with some unsatisfactory aspects of that position.

Before concluding, I would like to inform the House that we will not be unique in this country in registering opticians. In several places abroad such registration has been in operation for many years. In Britain, opticians are not yet registered, but a committee, representative of the medical profession, opticians and other interested parties, reported in 1952 in favour of registration on the lines which we had then been considering here, and which are now embodied in this Bill.

For the reasons which I mentioned earlier, the Government consider this Bill necessary as a protection for the public against a grave and common abuse, and I recommend it to the House for a Second Reading.

Dr. Ryan

I agree with the principle of this measure. As the Minister intimated in his speech, it is true that some negotiations were carried on by me with the interests concerned when I was Minister for Health. At that time I told the various parties that I would favourably consider the introduction of a Bill as soon as I had got an agreed scheme from those concerned. But that agreed scheme had not come along when I was leaving office; and I take it that the Minister is now going ahead with the Bill, if not on an agreed scheme at least on a scheme largely agreed between the interested parties.

There is one point one must always realise in legislating for professional bodies; that is, that as we go along we may become inclined to go just a little further in each case. The first profession dealt with by this State was the medical profession. Then we had the veterinary surgeons, followed by the dentists. Not so long ago we had the pharmaceutical chemists. In the case of the medical men, the veterinary surgeons and, I think, the dentists, we only went so far as to render it impossible for an individual to hold himself out as qualified. We did not, for instance, make it illegal for a man to give medical advice. We did not make it illegal for the cow doctor to continue operations and advise the farmer in relation to his stock. What we did do was to make it illegal for any man who was not a medical practitioner or a veterinary surgeon to say that he was a medical practitioner or a veterinary surgeon. One of the penalties imposed was that these unqualified people could not sue for a fee, but they could take a fee if it were offered to them. We know, as a matter of fact, that bonesetters are operating here and cow doctors are still carrying on.

Now, we are going further in this case and this is a point that I think we should consider very seriously. When the Medical Bill was going through we felt we could not make it absolutely illegal for a person to give medical advice because such a provision could not be enforced. As we all know, every day of the week people are getting advice on their health from unqualified persons. But it goes even further than that. You have men, such as bonesetters, who really make a living out of the business of giving advice. You have men who cure rheumatism and other affections. To be strictly truthful, I should say they hold themselves out as being able to cure rheumatism and so forth. I think we were wise in that particular instance not to go too far because, had we made it illegal for the bonesetter to operate, we would probably have had people with grievances, people who believe that, the doctor having failed, the bonesetter, if he were allowed to intervene, would succeed where the doctor had proved unsuccessful.

I admit the case here will not be exactly parallel because it is hardly likely that anybody would say that where the ophthalmic surgeon, the ophthalmic optician or the dispensing optician fails another person might have succeeded in giving him suitable glasses. I think, however, that there will be the contention that the other, person would give him cheaper glasses than any of the registered classes and that is why I am very much inclined to think that we should not go further than we did in previous legislation; we should only go so far as to say that, having established these registers of ophthalmic opticians and dispensing opticians, we should then make it illegal for any person to hold himself out as an ophthalmic optician or a dispensing optician.

I agree with the Minister that there is a danger of people accepting glasses from unqualified persons. I do not know what the percentage might be. A large proportion of people have normal sight until they grow old and, therefore, the ordinary glasses prescribed for presbyopia will suit one individual as well as another. But if the patient happened to be like me, with a half diopter error, the situation would be entirely different. If I were to get ordinary glasses for my presbyopia I would become subject to very bad headaches and I probably would not know why I was suffering from them; and there are some people who would go through life with a squint like mine who would suffer that disability. That is a serious thing and we should take note of it. We should try to prevent people suffering like that at the hands of unqualified individuals.

Practically 30 years ago when the Medical Bill was going through we allowed the quack to carry on even though he might make very, very serious mistakes. Recently the Minister announced that he intends to implement the Health Act of 1953. When that Act is implemented every insured person, every person with an income of less than £600 per annum, and every farmer under £20 valuation, and their families, will be entitled to free medical advice in relation to eyesight and will, therefore, have no need of consulting an unqualified person. They can go to the ophthalmic surgeon and get the appropriate prescription for glasses. They can get the glasses. It would be a very foolish person, indeed, who would take the risk in those circumstances of going to an unqualified person and paying for advice when he can have treatment and advice free from qualified experts.

For all these reasons, and in the interests of liberty, I would urge the Minister to consider seriously leaving that small residue of freedom to the individual to consult an unqualified person in relation to his eyesight if he so wishes. That is probably the biggest point on which I join issue with the Minister on this measure. There are a few other points.

In bringing in a Bill of this kind any Minister has, of course, the interests of the people concerned at heart and the professional classes—ophthalmic surgeons, ophthalmic opticians or dispensing opticians—who will be affected in their livelihood by a measure of this kind must receive secondary consideration. We cannot afford in any way to interfere with people's rights, or make it more difficult for people to get good service or interfere with the good service people are getting, for the benefit of classes of that kind. On the other hand, we must also remember that we are legislating especially for a class of people like opticians who have been making a living of that kind up to this. We must be careful for an interim period, as it is provided in this Bill, that a man who was making his living and doing good work should be permitted to carry on. We are all agreed on that.

The only thing we must consider, therefore, is whether the Bill is fair. In the first place, I think that if a person is depending entirely or almost entirely on work as an optician for seven years he should be brought in. I agree that that is fair and that seven years is long enough. It would be very hard for a man to change his way of life after engaging for seven years in making a living of that kind. But as regards the second provision, where it says that a person who has been engaged in the occupation for five years should then pass a special examination, I do not think it would injure or interfere with the scheme of this Bill to reduce that period of five years to, say, three years. This is only a small point—I mean a small point to discuss; it may be an important point as far as individuals are concerned although I do not know of any individuals affected—and it can be considered on the Committee Stage. After all, there is a special examination and if a person claims that he was three years there and intended to devote the rest of his life to this particular way of living and that he is quite prepared to undergo this special examination, I do not think we would be doing any injury to anyone by saying that the period should be three years instead of five. As I say, however, it is a matter for consideration.

There is a provision in both Sections 27 and 35 which enables the board to remove certain people from the register. There again, I feel sure everybody will agree that it is a very serious matter to remove a man from a register like that because it really means telling him he can no longer practise as an ophthalmic optician or a dispensing optician; he must go and seek some other work and it is very difficult for a man to go looking for other work in a case like that. It is a thing we should be very careful about, that a person is not deprived of his living unless there is very serious cause.

What is stated in the Bill here is that the board will make rules. We should be very jealous in this House of penalties of any kind, and I think the Minister should have tried to put these rules into each clause so that the Dáil would know what they were doing and know exactly what would expose a person to the penalty of being removed from the register. The board may and probably will be a little overenthusiastic about the prestige, and so on, of this new profession. They may be inclined to be a little over-zealous and to be too strict and they may remove a man from the register in their new enthusiasm who would not be removed at all for the same cause in ten, 12 or 15 years' time. I would suggest to the Minister that that is a power he should not give to the board without some kind of supervision. In fact the amendment I would be inclined to put into this Bill would be that the rules referred to in Sections 27 (3) and 35 (3) should have the approval of the Dáil, because it is a very serious matter indeed to give any board of that kind the right to deprive a man of his livelihood.

One other point I would like to mention is that if a man is removed he has the right of appeal and, as worded in the Bill, he can appeal either to the Minister or to a judge of the High Court. I do not like that provision at all. I would have no strong objection if the Minister put in either a judge of the High Court or the Minister but I think putting both into the Bill and giving the person a choice is a very bad thing indeed. Having been the Minister for Health myself, I say that probably if I had been in the Minister's place I would have put in the Minister, but that in any Bill I ever brought before this House where there was such a provision there was invariably an amendment from some member of the House to change from the Minister to a judge of the High Court. As I say, I do not mind whether the Minister puts in the High Court judge or the Minister but I would ask him to look into that matter and strike out one or the other.

Those are only a few points that struck me going through this Bill in connection with which I would be inclined to propose amendments on Committee Stage. It would be better, of course, in a Bill of this kind, where there is no serious conflict between Parties, if the Minister would consider the matter and put in an amendment himself and failing that I would probably put in an amendment and try to persuade the House to agree with me that these amendments are necessary. Subject to those few remarks and possibly subject to more close reading of the Bill before the Committee Stage comes along—there may be other amendments as a result of that more close reading—I would recommend that the Bill should have a Second Reading.

Mr. Maguire

I want to emphasise one of the points raised by Deputy Dr. Ryan in this debate. The qualifying period of seven years does appear to be rather long. A period of five years' experience qualifying somebody who is a dispensing optician to get on to the official register represents fairly long service and a person has got a lot of information in his general practice. Then there are people with a shorter period of service. They surely must have acquired some knowledge during the shorter period—let it be one year or four years—but they are completely kept out.

This is the first time that optical dispensing and so on, is being put under rigid regulation and those who entered the profession earlier were unaware of the limitations which are now being applied. The boy or girl who has served two, three or four years is at a slight disadvantage. I wonder if the Minister could say, if this rigid rule is applied, how many people now practising will be deprived of that practice. The duties of opticians have considerably increased in recent years by reason of health Acts, and the result is that the number of people practising have considerably increased. In practically every village now, there are such people as chemists and opticians operating. If these people now find that they are disqualified by reason of not having a sufficient length of service, not only will they be put at a disadvantage but the localities in which they practise will be put at a disadvantage.

I suggest that the Minister should take cognisance of the reactions that are likely to occur and that, instead of making it mandatory for a person to get on the register, that person, if he has practised for a year or more, should have the option of sitting for a qualifying examinations. In future, once this legislation has passed, any person going into the profession will know what is required of him—what knowledge he must have and what years of experience he must have— before he can be qualified; but this is now sprung on the community and there will be many people who entered the profession without the knowledge they now have. I suggest that the Minister would be acting in a fair way by giving every person who has been operating for at least a year the right to an examination to qualify.

Dr. Esmonde

This is a very important Bill. Any Bill dealing with the treatment of refractory troubles and diseases of the eyes must at some time or other affect every citizen of the State. There is nothing as tragic for people to face as blindness. That may be an extreme statement to make, but I propose to show how very often the end result of ill-judged treatment is blindness. It will be generally recognised that there is a need for a restriction of the promiscuous treatment of eyes which is going on at present throughout the country, but I think we should approach this Bill not alone from the angle of what is satisfactory to the ophthalmic surgeons, the ophthalmic opticians, and the opticians as a whole, but from what is for the general benefit of the public. That seems to me to be our duty in approaching the Bill.

For the purpose of stating the case I wish to make, I propose to divide my remarks and to relate them to three different sections concerned with the treatment of eyes or the dispensing of spectacles. The Minister has made it quite clear that the Bill in no way affects or restricts any member of the medical profession. First, there are the ophthalmic surgeons—duly qualified medical practitioners who have spent a considerable amount of time, money and study in becoming doctors, and who, subsequent to becoming doctors, specialised in eyes and travelled abroad to study up-to-date conditions in England, in Europe and in many cases in America, in order to perfect themselves in their profession. I think it is a fair statement to make that the recognised ophthalmic surgeon practising in the City of Dublin, or in any other part of the State, has at least ten years' solid education behind him to bring him to the state of perfection he now holds.

The second section are the ophthalmic opticians. These ophthalmic opticians have an examining body under which they pass an examination. The course is a matter of three years and they do not cover a very wide field. They cover a certain field in relation to the eyes but their tuition is more or less confined to that level.

The other section coming under the Bill are the opticians, who are to be restricted to the sale of spectacles alone. The purpose of the Bill, as I read the Bill and the Minister's statement, is to protect the public from being exploited by people who are not competent to examine eyes and prescribe spectacles. I want to make this clear, and I think this is where the great weakness of the Bill lies, that shortage of sight and defects of the eyes are not necessarily confined in treatment or in diagnosis to refraction. They are very often associated with some grave and underlying disease which may not be apparent to an ophthalmic optician, no matter how efficient he is or how many years' experience he has at his trade.

The Bill legalises, or purports to legalise, ophthalmic opticians, so that they will be in a position, on the basis of a certain register, to diagnose defects in sight and to prescribe spectacles for anyone who may go to them. One of the major causes of blindness is a condition known as glaucoma, which is localised in the eyes and, at the risk of wearying the House for a few minutes, I will give the symptoms. It is an increasing defect in the sight, with headaches. A person consults an ophthalmic optician and it is found that he needs a certain degree of corrected refraction. The optician prescribes glasses and these glasses for a temporary period improve the condition.

After a certain time, these glasses cease to achieve the object for which they were prescribed and what is more natural than that, in the ordinary course, having received satisfaction from the ophthalmic optician before, the patient should return for further treatment. Strengthening glasses are prescribed and again there is a measure of improvement which is temporary. This has happened not in one case, but in hundreds of cases, and to my own personal knowledge as a doctor. Ultimately, that patient finds that his sight is decreasing and that his headaches are continuing and he consults an ophthalmic surgeon. The tragedy of it is that he is then in many cases found to have an advanced state of glaucoma, a condition which destroys the optic nerve which is the hub of sight in the eyes. The end result is blindness.

That is an extreme case but other cases may be quoted as well. There is the condition of the detachment of the retina. That will result in a serious case of blindness if it is not properly diagnosed or dealt with. I cite these cases to show that it is not possible for the ophthalmic optician to diagnose such cases properly nor can he be expected, with the training he has received, to do so. There are also many other conditions that can be dealt with properly only by examination by an ophthalmic surgeon. In many cases patients are recommended to ophthalmic surgeons by physicians to be examined for the purpose of diagnosis.

I cite this to show that it is in the interests of the community as a whole, and I take it that this legislation is being brought in for the implementation of the optical section of the Health Act, that each and every person who requires treatment for any type or form of eye defect needs a thorough medical examination of his eyes and the only person competent to give that examination is the ophthalmic surgeon.

There are 60 ophthalmic surgeons in this country—specialists who have travelled abroad and studied to perfect themselves for the work in which they are engaged. If you are going to legalise ophthalmic opticians and enable them to diagnose, treat and prescribe for refraction you are running the risk of the instances I have mentioned. In other words, you run the risk of these opticians concentrating on what they themselves know in a limited field and that means that many cases which could be cured will be missed and blindness will be the result.

The Minister mentioned that this question has been fully considered in Britain over a number of years—I think he mentioned that 1952 was the first year in which they considered it—and so far they have not produced any Bill such as we are now producing for the purpose of legalising ophthalmic opticians. Having said so much I now want to approach the other angle. There are in this country a lot of people, chancers and charlatans, who are going down the country and setting up as qualified opticians and selling spectacles made of window glass for as much as four and five guineas and thus exploiting the community. There are also many honest people engaged in this trade. On the whole it is a difficult problem to deal with. The Minister may have accepted the fact that it is better to get this board and to legalise ophthalmic opticians and to legalise dispensing so as to prevent any further increase in the vast number of people going about and purporting to deal with problems that they know nothing at all about. I feel that there is considerable danger in this. There have been Bills such as this one passed in other countries and now they are already introducing contrary legislation to try and get back to the position in which they were before so that eyes should be dealt with by qualified people.

It would be very hard to know what would be the best way to deal with this difficult question but I feel that it is not meeting the case to legalise ophthalmic opticians. I feel that there should definitely be a restriction on these quacks and I think the best way to do that would be to make it illegal for anyone to sell spectacles unless he had some knowledge of refraction. That would mean a restriction of the number of people going into this trade. If a board was set up for that purpose and the sale of spectacles was thus restricted it would mean that that board would have control over such people who are at present completely untutored and doing injury to the eyes of the people throughout the country.

The Minister is setting up a board for this purpose which will consist of four members of the medical profession to be nominated by the Minister; six members to be nominated by the opticians' association and another member, at present unstated, but later to be nominated by the Minister, who will be neither an optician nor a medical practitioner. I feel myself, that, if you are going to have a board in which so many interests are concerned, it would be far better to have parity. I do not see why the ophthalmic surgeons should not have parity with the opticians. They cover a much wider field than the opticians do and are in a much better position to know what is best for the people's eyes. If the Minister wants control of this board, I have no doubt that the unstated member of the board will be a civil servant, and he will see that the interests of the Department of Health are looked after. Nobody can quibble with the method of election of the board for the first three years because if you are setting up a board you must begin somehow. It seems to me that in introducing a Bill like this, the intentions are rather nullified, to put it mildly, by excessive State control. It may be necessary, in setting up a new board, for the Minister in the first instance to have some control over the board.

When you consider that the Minister is nominating all the members of the board, it seems to me that Section 15 is quite unnecessary. Under Section 15 the Minister may at any time by Order remove any member of the board from office. It does seem to me that the board will not be given any real functions if this threat is held over them, that they may be removed from office at a moment's notice. They are completely and utterly under the Minister's control and under the Department's control. I deplore that kind of thing. You ought to give that board a definite function and put them in a position that if they incur the displeasure of the Minister or of the Department in any way they will not be got rid of overnight.

Section 16 also gives the Minister rather arbitrary powers. Sub-section (1) reads:—

"The Minister, if he is satisfied that the board have not performed any function which they are required by this Act to perform, may by Order require the board to perform such function...."

Sub-section (2) of that section says that if the board do not, within a period specified by the Minister, comply with an Order made under sub-section (1), the Minister may by Order remove from office the members of the board. It does not seem to me from that that the board has any real function whatsoever except to do what the Minister wants them to do or what his advisers would have them do. If they do not do that, ipso facto the whole lot of them will be cleared out. That seems to be a bad beginning for a board which is to be set up and nominated by the Minister himself.

I feel it is only right and reasonable that there should be a certain amount of control by the State when a new organisation such as this is being set up. I think that if the Minister is going to set up a board like this for three years he should give them reasonable authority to function.

Reading this Bill, I did not see that they will have any function whatsoever except to do what is suggested to them. That seems to amount to total and complete State control. Why not have it that at the end of the three-year establishment period, the board, which must function as an autonomous board financially—they get no subvention whatsoever—would be free to elect their own members from the different societies to which they belong? The Minister could retain one nomination.

One cannot have any real objection to the provision in the Bill for the right of appeal to the Minister in the case of anybody being removed from the register. There would seem to be two avenues of approach—one can appeal to the High Court or alternatively to the Minister. I do not see any particular objection to that because as everybody knows an appeal to the High Court is an expensive business. It may so happen there may be a mistake or an injustice and a member is removed from the register. Under this Bill he may go to the Minister with his appeal instead of to the court and the Minister will act in consultation with the board and will have all the facts before him. That is reasonable and a more economic approach from the point of view of the party concerned.

I have detained the House for a good while on this Bill and I should like to say in conclusion that I do not think this Bill is well drafted; I do not think that all the facts and factors have been taken fully into consideration. I think it is an effort to try and give this country some sort of control against those promiscuous individuals who go down the country and try to prey on the gullible public. But I do not think that the Minister has taken sufficient advice from experts on all matters and I would ask him, above all, to remove as many State controls as possible from the board when it is set up and fully functioning because State control means another file in his Department and another file in his Department means more civil servants in Ireland. We have enough civil servants in this country to last for our lifetime.

Mr. McGrath

There are several interests concerned in this Bill. We have the opticians who are at present selling spectacles and to whom people with eye diseases go for glasses. In most cases the glasses accordingly supplied seem to suit the people who get them and I take it, as Deputy Dr. Ryan remarked, these people will be protected by the Bill. I should like to know what will be the position of the assistants employed for four or five years by these people. Will they get an opportunity of qualifying? I must confess I have not read the Bill very carefully and I should like to know if these assistants will get an opportunity of qualifying as opticians. If they have served four or five years to this type of work it would be unfair if such an opportunity were not afforded to them. After all they have been in the same business as the qualified opticians.

Deputy Dr. Ryan dealt with people who suffer from eye diseases. I feel quite sure that people who suffer from such diseases are intelligent enough to see a doctor or an ophthalmic surgeon.

I feel quite sure they do not first go and get spectacles. Deputy Dr. Ryan also referred to the people who suffer lack of vision through age and other causes. At the present moment a lot of these people go to the multiple stores which sell spectacles and try on several sets until they get glasses that suit them. There is not any evidence to show that there is much damage done by that practice. He also pointed out that there is nothing in this to prevent a person who was unqualified as a doctor from carrying on as heretofore.

I wonder if it is the idea of the Bill that the ordinary man, whose sight is failing through age or for other reasons, and who gets—and as far as I can see it is all he wants—glasses that magnify the letters on newspapers he wants to read to such an extent that he can read them comfortably, will not be in a position to do that but will have to go to some of the registered people? If so, I have no doubt he will have to pay a lot more when he goes to the registered people. We have sufficient experience to know that in those places where those glasses are not in big supply on the counter—mass production or whatever you like to call it— glasses are bound to cost more. I would support Deputy Dr. Ryan in so far as he says we should bring in the registration of opticians and other people concerned, but still I would not cut out the person who in my opinion is giving a useful service to the people at a cheap rate. If the Minister has any evidence that those people are doing considerable damage to those who go in and select spectacles to suit them, and if he has any evidence, that we do not know of, that damage is occurring I certainly might have a different opinion. From what we hear —and I know many people who go into such places—we know of them having the glasses examined by ophthalmic surgeons afterwards and being told that there was very little wrong with them. That was the answer they were given.

These are matters I would like the Minister to consider. I would also like if the Minister would give us any information he may have about the opticians' assistants which would indicate what will happen to them when this Bill comes into effect and whether they will have an opportunity of carrying on in the business.

Mr. Finlay

There are one or two matters in this Bill which have been discussed and which seem to me to be of some importance. The first one which occurs to me is the general point which was made by Deputy Dr. Esmonde of the danger that by creating two classes of lawful registered opticians there would be a further maltreatment or lack of treatment, through ignorance, of people who are suffering from diseased conditions of their eyes by persons who are not skilled medical practitioners. If I thought the effect of the Bill would be as Dr. Esmonde feels it may be—to create that situation—I would be as concerned about it as he is. I think possibly his fears are too great and it seems to me that Section 45 of the Bill provides a strong prohibition against the treatment by anybody of diseases of the eye and against the holding out by anybody—when I say anybody, I mean anybody other than a qualified medical practitioner—of any skill or willingness to treat diseases of the eye. If properly enforced—and presumably an efficient board will enforce the prohibition section—that should remove the danger with which Deputy Dr. Esmonde was concerned. It seems that the Bill should have the opposite effect to that which Deputy Dr. Esmonde fears; it should eliminate the people who without medical skill have held themselves out either explicitly or implicitly as capable of treating diseases affecting people's eyes.

There is one other matter raised by Deputy Dr. Esmonde which seems to me of some importance and it is this question of the extent to which the Minister and the Government has taken control in the Bill over the board. I would like to put before the House and the Minister a slightly different view from those already expressed. It is this: I agree we should be very careful indeed in any legislation controlling any profession or occupation of the freedom of anybody to follow a profession or occupation. We should be careful of tying it too closely to the Government, or even closely to the Government in some cases.

I think we ought also be very careful if we are creating in effect a monopoly —in other words, if we are going to create a group by registration or listing or qualifications which will be the only group entitled to carry on a certain profitable activity in this country—to ensure that we do not hand over to that group itself the power of excluding other people from joining its ranks. We do not want, merely by legalising opticians, by attempting to ensure that unqualified persons are not allowed to carry on the business of opticians, we do not want, by freeing the board too much from some sort of supervision by the Minister and the Government, to create a situation whereby the board and the profession as a whole expressing itself through its elected representatives to the board could start a sort of exclusive or closed-shop policy for the professional opticians. I think those two considerations must be balanced and I am not at all satisfied that they are not fairly well balanced so far in this Bill.

It may be that certain freedom could be given at a later stage to the board or to the profession or vocation when it has proved itself capable of managing its own affairs with a sense of responsibility. It might be possible to put in this Bill even now some provision which would allow for a loosening of the strings between the Department and the board as the board grows up, but I would certainly not be in favour of abolishing the major control or supervision of this board by the Department unless we had some very solid and effective guarantee that we would not create a situation whereby the first group or generation of people to get themselves registered as opticians in either of these classes and who got their representatives on to the board managing their own affairs could then create a sort of closed shop against other young people quite willing and quite fitted to come in.

There is one other matter which is possibly more a matter for the Committee Stage because it is a detail, but it is a detail which goes through one whole section and as it is seems to me to be a matter of principle I would like to mention it at this stage for the Minister's consideration. It seems to me that one of the most important provisions in this Bill apart from the penalties for actually carrying on the business of an optician is the title assuming section. It has been our experience in regard to all such matters, in the case of the medical and the dental professions and so on, that entitlement to direct control against people who are unqualified assuming the title of qualified people is most important. Section 47 appears to me in its present form to be of little use because it merely prohibits a nonregistered ophthalmic optician or dispensing optician from calling himself a registered ophthalmic or dispensing optician. It will be a long time before the ordinary man in this country understands the distinction of a registered dispensing optician. I think we must provide the correct savers for people carrying on the business and who are waiting for the period during which they can be registered, but I think we should go further than Section 47 goes at present and provide that nobody except those qualified to act in one way or another should be entitled to hold themselves out as dispensing or ophthalmic opticians. I may be wrong in my reading of Section 47 but if I read it correctly it would be no offence to hold oneself out as a dispensing optician whether you are entitled or not as long as you did not put the word registered before your claim. I do not think the word "registered" will receive its due importance in the minds of the ordinary people for a very considerable period after the Act has been in operation.

The only other point I would like to mention is something which may really be again a matter of construction in the Bill and, so long as I am satisfied the Minister has it in his mind, it may possibly be of no importance. I refer to the advertising section of the Bill. I agree with what has been said of the tragedies one sees in the country of people being treated by charlatans and chancers for eye trouble, with all the tragic consequences that ensue and the tragic losses that are sometimes sustained. It has been my experience in a number of country districts, and this applies particularly to the less densely populated areas— for instance Mayo—that apart from any advertising in local papers or billposting in local shops or hotels an extensive canvass is carried on by people whose bona fides are doubtful and who are certainly not very highly qualified. I would like the Minister to ensure that Section 49, which gives the board power to prescribe rules controlling advertising by dispensing or ophthalmic opticians. also gives the board power to make rules controlling canvassing on the part of these people. I am thinking of the sort of thing which has come within my own experience where certain people arrive in showy looking cars, giving the impression of affluence and skill, at small houses in the more lonely parts of the West and persuade old people, and it is easy to persuade old people, that their eyesight is not as good as it was 20 years ago. The result is a pair of four guinea spectacles which are, so far as the layman can judge, of no apparent value whatsoever. Now that is not done by advertising. It is done by the old system of the soft talk and the canvass. If the board is to have power to control advertising the Minister might also consider giving it specific power, which it may not have as the measure stands at present, to draw attention to the question of canvassing orders. If it is intended to give to the vocation or profession of dispensing and ophthalmic opticians the power to draw up their own register, to manage their own affairs to a very large extent and have proper examinations, we should go further and give them that extra power. In effect, we give them a monopoly once they establish themselves as a profession. If we do that, we are entitled on behalf of the ordinary people to insist in return that they should adopt very high professional standards as between themselves and in relation to the general public.

We should keep in mind in approving of this measure, and it appears to me to be a desirable measure in its general outline, that we are, in effect, giving to this particular occupation or profession a monopoly it did not hitherto enjoy. Not only are we requiring a body which was unorganised before to organise itself now and put its house in order, but we are giving that body a monopoly; and, in return, we are entitled to expect from that body—and we should not be slow to make this requirement under the Bill —a very high standard of professional conduct.

Mr. S. Flanagan

First of all, I would like to compliment Deputy Finlay on his speech. He has made exactly the case I intended to make on behalf of the ordinary people, particularly in the West of Ireland, an area which is one of the happy hunting grounds for quack opticians of one kind or another. I have not heard any contributions to this debate except that of Deputy Finlay and possibly the matters with which I wish to deal may already have been dealt with by some other speakers.

It seems to me that the section requiring people to satisfy the board that they have carried on business as ophthalmic or dispensing opticians for a specified period, together with proof of their being citizens of Ireland and so forth, is hopelessly weak. It means, in effect, that these people will be allowed to carry on. They may not be allowed to advertise as they have been doing. God forbid that they should; but, even so, it looks as if we will allow these quacks in and allow them to continue to practise when, in fact, they are not entitled to carry on that profession or business at all. I do not want to mention any individual in debate. I think that would be against the tradition of the House, but there are firms which supply glasses to the public, controlled and managed by people who have no qualifications whatsoever. They have not even passed one examination in ophthalmics to justify their engaging in that occupation or business. It is not good enough in a country very largely unconscious of the importance of proper treatment for the eyes that these people should be allowed to continue operating and that we, in the legislation we introduce, condone that by not causing regulations to be made obliging these people to pass examinations in order to qualify for the carrying on of this particular business. It is not good enough that an individual simply by waving a citizenship paper and saying: "I am a citizen of Ireland and therefore I am an optician" should be entitled to practise as an optician. Before the Bill passes into law it should be altered so that no person other than a man properly qualified will be allowed to register either as a dispensing or ophthalmic optician.

I understand that when people are doing the courses necessary for this particular avocation they do a lot of physics and certain other subjects, subjects they do not really need in practice. I am not suggesting we should ask these people to return to the university and start all over again on theoretical courses; but I think we should insist on a practical examination for all except those who have certain recognised degrees and qualifications. That is the very least we should do if we want to protect the people from the continued ministrations of quacks.

Deputy Finlay did not exaggerate when he spoke about canvassing and described these people going around in flashy cars in the West of Ireland. They publish advertisements, many of which are fraudulent. Indeed, they go a good deal further than that. They run down those who are qualified. They say: "Oh, he is useless," or "the diagnosis was wrong." It is particularly easy for these people to carry on such a campaign canvassing from house to house, sitting on the hob and so forth. It is a sort of technique against which the qualified person has virtually no defence, particularly in the country where the people are so sadly behind the times in their consciousness of the importance of proper treatment for the eyes. Very often one will see an old lady producing a pair of spectacles to sign a document or read the paper. They are tied together with a piece of string or a few strands of thread. She puts the spectacles on and says: "Oh, those are no good; those are the ones I got from Mary in America." She tries on another pair which are not much better and she says: "I got these from John, the time he came home from England." I know of cases where glasses have been given by these quacks, glasses which are pretty well useless to the recipients, as useless as the spectacles that John passes on to his mother when her sight begins to go dim.

The principal grievance against the Bill for my part is that I think it does not go half far enough and that we must, in my opinion, amend Section 26 so as to provide for the practical examination which everyone, other than certain categories of people who have the proper degrees, would have to pass before they would be allowed to register or practise as opticians.

I understand that an opportunity has already been given to those people to pass an examination but that many of them have refused to do that. There are quite a few who have done this practical examination. I do not see any reason why another examination should not be set and that these people be told either to give up their business of optician or prove that they are able to carry it on. After all there is not any more exact science, if you like, than prescribing and supplying proper glasses.

Take for instance the ordinary chemist who has perhaps a lifetime of experience dealing with spectacles. If you have not the special qualifications, he would not know, for instance, if the left-hand glass was fitted into the right-hand frame and vice versa. That is a particular case I have come across in practice myself. The glasses were properly fitted within the frame and the frame was according to prescription but the wrong glass was put in and the chemist was not qualified enough to know that that was so. Not being an expert in these things myself, I do not want to dogmatise about them but I understand the most important thing in curing or helping to cure a defect in eyesight is proper refraction.

I notice on reading through this Bill that the word "sale" appears all over the place and that there is provision for the sale, in a wholesale manner, of spectacles. I am wondering what exactly that means. Does it mean that Woolworths or other firms like that can sell spectacles at 2/6 or 5/- and that they may be supplied wholesale to them? If so, does the House think that that sort of practice should be encouraged, or, in fact, allowed? After all, if the exact diagnosis, proper refraction, and so forth, is the important thing and the proper fitting of the frame for the supply of spectacles afterwards is almost as important, this appears to be a highly technical thing that only highly qualified and skilled people should have anything to do with. In the circumstances, I fail to see, unless I am misreading the Bill, what is the meaning of allowing the sale of spectacles by wholesale. Section 50, Part V, says:—

"Nothing in this part of this Act shall operate to prevent or restrict— ...(b) the sale by wholesale of spectacles."

Another important point is that some of the big firms that manufacture glasses have a special representative in their shop and, because they are getting two profits instead of one, they are able to undercut all other people. That is a small matter and I suppose it is one that is not very important at this stage of the Bill, but I am wondering again if it does not give an unfair advantage to one person over another; in other words, that a person who is prescribing glasses should not be in the same place, in my opinion, as the person who is manufacturing them.

I welcome in principle any Bill which would be designed to clear up the mess that has existed down the years in regard to optics generally. I welcome this Bill as an advance on the right road. I welcome it particularly because it will focus public attention in a country where attention needs to be devoted to eyesight generally and to the importance of caring it and getting proper treatment, in the hope that people will become properly conscious of their duty to themselves and particularly to their children so that the day when the mother passes on the glasses to her child when she ceases to have any use for them, will pass very soon in this country.

In that hope I welcome this Bill but I hope also that the House will agree with me that the Bill does not go far enough. We should take steps to ensure that only qualified persons are allowed to practise as opticians. When I say "qualified" I do not necessarily mean—I think I have made it clear I do not mean—people who have gone through only certain university courses, and so forth. What I mean is that those people, and such others who have been in the business and have made their money and their livelihood by it but who have proved by passing the practical examination that they in fact have the knowledge and the experience to carry on the business, should be allowed to do so. Otherwise we are going to defeat the purpose of this Bill and we are going to have as registered opticians people who are a nuisance and a danger in the community. I do think we should face that fact fairly and squarely and not allow anybody, merely by waving a citizenship paper in front of the board, to get away with the fact that he has no qualifications and no right to practise. Before the Bill leaves this House it should be designed in such a way that certain types of people will be excluded. After all, we shall only then be bringing this profession into line with every other business and profession in the country. I do not say that I would not feel sorry for people having been denied their livelihood. I would feel sorry for them as individuals losing their livelihood but when I know what some of these people have done to the plain people of the West of Ireland, particularly in the area I come from, I would not feel a bit sorry that they would be forever excluded from the threshold of these Irish homes.

Mr. A. Byrne

My first duty is to congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill which we welcome. I congratulate him on the Bill and all other Bills he has brought in for the improvement of the health of the people. I was requested to ask a question although I am not sufficiently qualified to discuss the merits of it. In certain medical halls all over the country, highly qualified chemists have been dealing with the optical section of the business. Some of these people have five and six years' service and it is feared that some monopolist interest will try to keep them out of the business because they are described as something other than opticians, although they have been engaged in it all their lives and have been earning their living at it.

I am informed that some time ago there was an examination for which 17 chemists, or people engaged in some sideline of the chemists' business, sat, and not one of the 17 was allowed to pass. I suggest that the Minister should see to it that such qualified persons will not be debarred, because there is a fear expressed in one or two places in the city that somebody will try to keep that type of person out of the business. I ask the Minister to make sure that if he gives power to anybody to decide on examinations, or on who shall sit for examination, no young student, coming straight from his college without any practical experience, will be allowed to do out of his employment a man who has at least five years' practical experience. If there is a man with this practical experience who is certified by his employers to be a good man, the Minister should take steps to protect him and see that he is not victimised by any examination board.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I should like to express my appreciation to the House, and particularly to the Deputies who took part in the discussion, of the manner in which the Bill has been received by the House. I can assure Deputies generally that the points of view which have been expressed on different aspects of the Bill will be considered very carefully by me between now and the Committee Stage, but perhaps I might deal with some of these points now.

It seems to be the consensus of opinion amongst Deputies that there is, in relation to this problem of the supply of glasses and spectacles up and down the country, a public nuisance, which does require the intervention of the Dáil. I have here specimen advertisements which are a regular feature in most country newspapers—advertisements inserted by a number of persons styling themselves as well-known qualified opticians, eye specialists and all the rest of it, and advertising their knowledge in all matters appertaining to defects of the eyes. Every Deputy who has any knowledge of country life is aware that unfortunately advertisements such as these and the canvassing mentioned by Deputies Finlay and Flanagan do lead not infrequently to the passing of money by old and defenceless people to some of these gentlemen for a worthless article.

This public nuisance, as I describe it, has been in existence for a great number of years, and I think the House can be satisfied that the legislative proposal we are now discussing has not been hastily thought of and has not been rushed. The necessity for it has been growing over the years and it is only now that, having taken full stock of the situation, it has been necessary to suggest this way of dealing with the problem.

Whenever one mentions registration, one is conscious that perhaps a closed shop may be created, and, of course, any proposal for registration is open to criticism on that ground. It is very hard to know the best way of setting about a matter of this kind, because what we all desire is to see better standards adopted and it is in seeking for better standards that one is driven into saying: "We will specify the standards", and, in effect, that means registration. Once you decide on registration, then, if you are serious about your standards, you have to prevent everyone who is substandard from carrying on in the business or profession concerned, so that I am conscious of the fact that there is a danger of a monopoly in an occupation being given to those who are registered, and certainly, since that danger is there, the provisions with regard to the functions of the board will be very carefully examined.

Deputy Dr. Ryan mentioned, quite rightly, that, while in the past the State has seen fit to provide, in effect, the same kind of registration for medical practitioners, for dentists, for pharmaceutical chemists and for nurses, on these other occasions, the State did not go so far as to say: "If you are not registered, you may not carry on in the business"—if I may use that phrase. That, of course, is quite right and true, and Deputy Dr. Ryan's point is well taken. The trouble in this connection is that the problem is created by the sale of "phoney" spectacles. The problem is created by the prescribing of spectacles by persons without knowledge. It is the very operation of these people that creates the problem. If they did not exist, there would be no problem. The fact that they do exist creates the problem, and, accordingly, if we are to attempt to deal with the problem at all, we must go the whole way, and, having established our standards and set up our register, we must be quite rigorous in putting the people who do not make the standard out of business.

Deputy Dr. Ryan may be surprised to learn that he, in fact, as Minister, decided that the whole step was necessary, and, as Minister in January, 1954, having decided to go ahead with this legislation, approved of a scheme of registration and also of a prohibition on people who did not succeed in getting registration either prescribing or dispensing spectacles. I must say that, having given considerable thought to the matter myself, I could not see that there would be any worthwhile alternative way of dealing with the problem. Merely registering and prohibiting people describing themselves as what they are not would not deal with the problem in a satisfactory way. We would still have these gentlemen conducting the same kind of dangerous business that they have been doing for a number of years.

When the board has been convened and the register has been established, all of those people who hold recognised qualifications, whatever they may be, will be registered on application. I was concerned, with Deputy Dr. Ryan, with the fact that there are a great number of people in the country who are carrying on a fair and decent business as opticians of different kinds. They have their own code of etiquette and they conform to certain reasonable standards of conduct. It would seem unfair to me that these old established persons or firms should have to undergo an examination, often in the winter of their years, and accordingly in the Bill we have taken the period of seven years, which I do not think is unreasonable. However, I am open to conviction on that. We have taken the period of seven years and have said that any person who has been in recognised practice as an ophthalmic optician for seven years and can show that he is a citizen and that his main source of livelihood is his practice should be entitled to registration. If any Deputy has any strong views on this matter I would invite discussion on the Committee Stage.

With regard to the further period of five years mentioned in the Bill, there again I am open to conviction. It was not in the previous scheme because I was concerned with the position of chemists in the country. As most Deputies will appreciate most chemists have, for many years, been dispensing spectacles and have been engaged in the work referred to in the Bill. I felt that some special provision should be made for them. They could not qualify under the section dealing with the seven years' practice because this part of their business could not be regarded as their main source of livelihood. Accordingly it is provided in the Bill that if these chemists have been in that business for a period of five years—and that again is a matter on which I have not any very strong views—if they have been carrying on that business for that period of years, and have established by examination that they have certain qualifications and know what they are doing, then they will be registered. The examination will not be the type that a person would have to undergo who is just entering into the business. It will be specially designed for persons in this category.

Deputy Dr. Ryan also referred to the question of the removal of persons from the register. I must confess that I am concerned with what he said in that direction. I think that there may be a danger that the board, in drawing up its rules, might take powers to itself which might be used unjustly or capriciously against persons on the register. I would point out to Deputies however that this again is a matter to be considered in more detail later. I would refer Deputy Dr. Ryan to the fact that under Section 18 the rules to be adopted by the board must have the consent of the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

I took it that that only applies to Section 18.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am advised that it applies to all rules that they may make but I will have that matter examined. Section 18 is the rule—making section and any rules must have the consent of the Minister. Later on any rules referred to would be rules already made with the consent of the Minister. I think that will remove some of the dangers that the Deputy had in mind.

On the question of appeal from removal from the register—again I have no very strong view on that. I think it was Deputy Dr. Esmonde who expressed my feeling on it. The procedure of appeal to a judge of the High Court is a very cumbersome from of appeal and it may be an expensive form of appeal. While I think it is desirable that it should be there it appears to me that we should also provide appeal to the Minister. Again I have no strong views on that and I will welcome the views of Deputies on the Committee Stage of the Bill. The appeal to the High Court is designed merely to ensure that if a person is removed from the register and feels that he might not get a fair hearing from the Minister for the time being then he will be able to appeal to a judge of the High Court if he so wishes.

Deputy Dr. Esmonde has referred to a number of objections which I have heard expressed already in discussions dealing with the Bill. I know that this Bill is not liked by the ophthalmic surgeons and the medical people who deal with this specialty.

I can, of course, quite understand their point of view and sympathise with what they say. At the same time I do not think we should be going around in blinkers in a matter of this kind. The facts are that any ophthalmic surgeon to whom I may go or to whom Deputies Dr. Esmonde or Dr. Ryan may go, if he prescribes spectacles for me, he will give me a prescription to take to an ophthalmic optician, generally in practice not very far from his rooms. I think all ophthalmic surgeons do recognise that there is a reputable person engaged in the business of dispensing prescriptions and selling spectacles.

In addition, I think they also recognise that there are persons who engage in this business as a speculation and who are out to make money quickly and who are unconcerned as to the danger they might do. The facts being pretty well common, the only concern is to provide a measure on common facts to deal with the problem recognised by everybody as being in existence. Deputy Dr. Esmonde says that this Bill, which legalises ophthalmic opticians, may lead to harm. Of course that is not correct. Ophthalmic opticians do not need any legalising from this Bill; they are perfectly lawful as it is. At the moment there is nothing to prevent any person who feels that there is something wrong with his eyes from going in to an ophthalmic optician and getting spectacles and going in again and getting more spectacles, and if he is unfortunate, as Deputy Dr. Esmonde says, and finds that he is going blind this Bill does not create that danger. The danger is there already.

All this Bill does is to ensure that a particular man will not have to undergo the danger of being canvassed or of going to some person who is completely without qualifications and reckless in the advice and treatment he may give out. When we talk about the danger of a person who has eye disease getting wrong treatment or advice from an ophthalmic optician registered under this Bill we must not allow ourselves to commit the mistake of thinking that such a danger was created by this Bill. As I have said, it is there already and I think the danger is far greater at the moment. I also think—I have expressed this view to those representing the ophthalmic surgeons—that those who use the argument that this Bill is going to encourage people to go to non-medical persons and seek from them medical advice, illustrate that they have a very poor opinion of our people here. No one is going to think that a person going to an ophthalmic optician will get medical advice; most people know very well the distinction and the difference that does exist between an ophthalmic optician and an oculist or ophthalmic surgeon, and most of our people are very quick to understand when their complaint requires the advice of a doctor, or merely requires the provision of spectacles. When I say that, I am referring to ophthalmic opticians who, under their rules, do not advertise or carry on their business but try to give a fair service to the public. I feel that ophthalmic surgeons might be in far greater danger from some of those gentlemen who advertise in the provincial Press and who, by their advertisements, tell the public that they are the greatest eye specialists in the world. I would have expected the I.M.A. and the ophthalmic surgeons to be more than anxious to join with me in preventing people such as those from preying on the gullible public and who hold themselves out, in effect if not in fact, as being qualified medical persons. I think that this Bill, if it aims at preventing that, is conserving the position whereby a person who wants to get medical advice in relation to a disease or difficulty in his eyes will go to a properly qualified person and will not be in danger of being codded by a few unqualified persons.

In that connection may I say that under the Bill very great care has been taken to pinpoint the fact that a registered optician under this Bill is nothing but an optician; that the Bill pinpoints the fact that there is no danger of a misunderstanding on that matter? There is provision in Section 45 which says:—

"(1) A registered optician shall not, on or after the appointed day— (a) treat any disease of the eye or prescribe or administer any drug or other medical preparation for that purpose,

(b) prescribe or administer any drug for the purpose of paralysing the accommodation of the eye, or

(c) suggest by any written or oral statement or by any action that, in relation to the treatment of the eyes, he has done or is capable of doing anything which is other than the providing of spectacles or, in the case of a registered ophthalmic optician, the prescribing of spectacles."

That is written into the Bill in order to make quite sure by legislation that a registered optician is registered as such and is precluded from administering drugs and from suggesting that he can do or has done anything more than prescribe or supply spectacles.

It is the same as in the case of the dentists' board where there is representation for medical practitioners who are not dentists. The dentists have the major share on that board because it is a dentists' board. It does appear to me that it is only fair and reasonable that that should be done.

I shall certainly consider very carefully what Deputy Dr. Esmonde said in relation to the removal from office of members of the board. I shall certainly consider that between now and the Committee Stage.

Deputy Finlay has referred also to the danger of the closed shop which I have already mentioned. He referred to a possible defect in the title assuming section and I shall have that examined between this and the Commitee Stage. In relation to canvassing which he mentioned, I do not think he need have any fears with regard to that. Advertising will be prohibited and registration will take place. I do not think there will be much danger then—at least if there is, it is very hard to prevent it. The only canvassing that could take place would be done by persons who are not registered and who in effect would be committing an offence when this Bill becomes an Act. However, I shall have the matter considered in detail between this and the Committee Stage.

I have endeavoured to cover some of the major points that have been made by Deputies. I think that the Bill is necessary and I am glad it has been accepted so generously by the House. I can assure the House that if any Deputy has any particular view on reading the Bill more carefully before the Committee Stage any amendments which are put down will be considered very carefully and sympathetically. I hope by so doing we shall provide as well as we can for the solution of the problem covered by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 16th November, 1955.