Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 May 1972

Vol. 260 No. 9

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pharmaceutical Chemists.

7.

asked the Minister for Health the number of pharmacists who were declared redundant on the introduction of the choice of doctor scheme in the Eastern Health Board region; and what provision has been made for them.

As a result of the introduction of the choice of doctor scheme in the Eastern Health Board area, seven permanent part-time and 34 temporary pharmacists have been made redundant. The permanent pharmacists are being compensated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1956, which provide for the payment of pensions and lump sums or gratuities, depending on whether the officers concerned were pensionable or non-pensionable.

There is no statutory authority for paying compensation to the temporary pharmacists. However, my Department have kept in touch with the Eastern Health Board in relation to this matter and steps have been taken by the board, with my agreement, to minimise hardship and afford those who have not been re-employed or have no other means of support, a reasonable opportunity of finding alternative employment.

May I ask the Minister how long the longest-employed temporary pharmacist has been employed? Which of them has been employed for the longest time?

I cannot give the date. All the temporary appointees were aware on taking up duty that the choice of doctor scheme was in the course of planning and that their jobs would be of short duration. In further reply to the Deputy, the union concerned has produced a list of 16 pharmacists to the Eastern Health Board. Some of them have been able to secure other employment. The Health Board are negotiating with a view to finding alternative employment for the remainder.

8.

asked the Minister for Health if he is aware that the Pharmacy (Ireland) Act, 1875, Amendment Act, 1890, discriminates against a professionally qualified group known as qualified assistants to pharmaceutical chemists in that, though these have served an apprenticeship of not less than four years and have passed the examination of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland entitling them to do the duties of a pharmaceutical chemist in his temporary absence, nevertheless they are denied professional status and pay; and if he will consider having the Act amended to rectify the matter.

I am aware of the terms of the Pharmacy (Ireland) Act, 1875, Amendment Act, 1890. That Act provided, inter alia, for the establishment of the grade of assistant to pharmaceutical chemists who, having passed such examination set by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, were adjudged competent to transact the business of a pharmaceutical chemist in his temporary absence. That Act did not permit the assistant either to keep open shop or to manage such shop. On the contrary it specifically denied him such right.

The qualifications of a pharmaceutical chemist and those of a qualified assistant cannot be validly compared for the purposes of the Deputy's conclusion. The former has completed a three year university course leading to a degree of Bachelor of Science (Pharmacy) followed by a year's practical training and examination in forensic pharmacy whilst the latter serves a three year apprenticeship followed by attendance at an eight month part-time course at the College of Pharmacy.

I do not accept therefore that there is any discrimination against qualified assistants in the 1890 Act or any other Act or that any action is called for by me.

Is the Minister aware that Britain abolished this Amendment Act of 1890, as did Stormont in Northern Ireland? Would he not in those circumstances, having regard to those who are already assistants, introduce an amending Act to give them some kind of recognition and not to have these second-rate professionals, as we have at the moment, who are being exploited? In view of the fact that Britain and Northern Ireland abolished that Act, would the Minister not do so now in the interest of justice for these people?

I can give no decision on this matter.

Will the Minister have another look at this matter?

I will, at some time or other. The matter has always been under review.

Top
Share