Vol. 304 No. 4
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 13: In subsection (4), page 9, line 10, "provided that in the case of the committee referred to in sub-section (2) (b) of this section the chairman shall be a member of the Council other than the President or the Vice-President of the Council" inserted after "Council".
I move amendment No. 1 on the Order Paper:
Section 29: In page 14, subsection (1), line 11, to delete "subsections (2) and (3)" and to substitute "sub-section (2)".
This amendment is consequential on an amendment made in the Seanad. Deputies will see that in section 29 a later amendment deletes subsection (3). In subsection (1) of section 29, page 14, line 11 the words "the Council may, subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section" occur. The reference to subsection (3) is no longer appropriate. The purpose of this amendment which I have moved is to delete the words "and (3)" in line 11, page 14, subsection (1) of section 29.
I assume that this amendment will then have to be referred back to the Seanad.
No. We are entitled to make amendments of this nature which are consequential on amendments made in the Seanad.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 29: In page 14, lines 20 to 23, subsection (3) deleted.
This amendment proposes to delete subsection (3) from section 29. This matter was discussed in the House and as a result of an undertaking which I gave in the House I moved this amendment in the Seanad and the Seanad agreed to it. It is to remove the need for a linguistic ability test in the case of people seeking temporary registration.
Is this amendment No. 1 as made in the Seanad?
We are on amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1 is agreed.
Are we talking about the amendment on page 9, line 10? Is that not an amendment which refers to the debarment of the president or vice-president of the council from being chairman of the Fitness to Practise Committee? Is that not the amendment we should be taking?
I beg your pardon. I took the other amendment first.
The Minister is in order in taking this amendment. Does the Deputy wish to speak on amendment No. 2 which the Minister is now taking?
As the Deputies will see, amendment No. 2 proposes to delete subsection (3) from section 29.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
Section 40: In page 18, line 26, "with the bodies specified in sections 9 (1) (a), 9 (1) (b), 9 (1) (c), 9 (1) (d) and 9 (1) (e) of this Act, and" inserted after "consultation".
We have now moved on to section 40. The amendments which follow are nearly all the result of discussions I have had with medical organisations about the new post-graduate education and training board. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where the new board advises the Minister it shall specifically consult with the bodies set out in section 9—University College Cork, Dublin, Galway, Trinity College, College of Surgeons and so on. The amendment ensures that the board will consult with these teaching institutions before it advises me on these matters.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
Section 40: In page 18, line 30, "education and" inserted after "dental".
This could be regarded as a drafting amendment. The new board will be concerned with education and training, not just training, and it is to ensure this that the amendment is being made.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
Section 40 : In page 18, lines 31 to 33, paragraph (c) deleted.
This proposes to delete paragraph (c) of section 40. The purpose is to ensure that it is the teaching bodies who will organise teaching and training. The function of the new board will be to promote and develop, not to organise.
While I agree with the amendment, I want to take the opportunity of referring to something to which I did not have a full opportunity of referring for a particular reason when the Bill was going through the House originally on Report Stage. The House will recall that an entire new chapter was introduced at a very late stage and in a very hasty way and that the main function of it was to set up this board. It was introduced on Report Stage and consequently the chapter and the amendments were all discussed and adopted in less than three minutes from the commencement of Report Stage. As a result we were not given an opportunity of discussing it. I said at the time that I felt it was not fair at that late stage to introduce as important a new chapter as this without adequate consultation with the bodies concerned and without allowing Members of the House who in the normal way would have studied the contents of the Bill to give consideration to it. The fact that this subsection has to be deleted now—basically I believe we are in agreement now; the entire subsection is wrong in concept— is proof that it is a dangerous thing to introduce a chapter or as far-reaching an amendment as this on the Report Stage of a Bill at such short notice. I hope the House will not endeavour to do this in future.
Perhaps I was a little confused but I am not sure that we formally agreed to Seanad amendment No. 1. We have two Nos. 1, the Dáil amendment No. 1 and Seanad amendment No. 1.
The Ministerial amendment No. 1, as I pointed out to the House, is consequential on the Seanad amendment.
I am satisfied so long as the Seanad amendment has been formally made. I think we adopted the consequential amendment but I do not think we adopted the amendment to section 13.
I put amendment No. 1.
I move that the committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
Section 41: In page 18, line 38, "following consultation with the Board" inserted after "Minister".
In section 41 we proposed to insert after "Minister" in the third line of the section, the words "following consultation with the board". The section gives the Minister power to assign additional functions to the board. The purpose of these words is to ensure that any such functions can only be assigned to the board after consultation with the board.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
Section 42: In page 18, lines 40 and 41, subsection (1) deleted and the following subsection substituted:
"(1) The Board shall consist of twenty-five members, appointed by the Minister, of whom—
(a) each shall be a person having practical experience or special knowledge of the matters relating to the functions of the Board,
and
(b) not less than twenty shall either be registered medical practitioners or registered dentists."
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
Section 44: In page 19, line 27, "and Rules" inserted after "sections".
Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 are cognate and may be taken together.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
Third Schedule: In Article 6 (1), page 31, line 40, "Minister" deleted and "Board" substituted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:
Third Schedule: In Article 6 (2), page 31, line 45, "Minister" deleted and "Board" substituted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:
Third Schedule: In Article 6 (3), page 32, line 3, "Minister" deleted and "Board" substituted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:
Third Schedule: In Article 6 (3), page 32, line 4, "the Minister" deleted and "it" substituted.
A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it that the Dáil agreed to Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 12, inclusive, and that the Dáil has made an amendment to the Bill consequential on agreement to Seanad amendment No. 2 and that the agreement of Seanad Éireann is desired.
