Special Committee Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1973 debate -
Wednesday, 26 Nov 1975

SECTION 1.

Mr. Haughey

I move Amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 22, after " covered " to insert " wholly or partly ".

This amendment is of a drafting nature. I do not pretend that it is of great fundamental importance and it was put down in an effort to improve the drafting in this, the interpretation section. For the purposes of the Bill it is important that " land " be defined. My amendment seeks to extend that definition, not to interfere with its main purpose, by saying that land includes land covered wholly or partly by water. I have noticed this definition in other legislation and it is necessary to include it here just to avoid any confusion. There are times when land is covered with water and times when it is partly covered and partly uncovered. For the purposes of exactitude it is an amendment worth making.

Minister for Health (Mr. Corish)

I do not have any objection to this amendment. I presume the Deputy also means that it is possible that it would be a jetty or a bridge that would cover water but " land " itself is specifically defined in the Interpretation Act, 1937. Having said that I do not think that the insertion of the amendment will present any difficulty but would further extend the definition.

Mr. Haughey

I am grateful to the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following new definition:

"‘ pharmacist ' means a registered pharmaceutical chemist, a registered dispensing chemist and druggist and a registered druggist ".

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 16 form a composite proposal; amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 40, 48 are consequential on number 16; amendment No. 111 is related and No. 6 is related to No. 5. They are grouped together for debate purposes.

Mr. Haughey

Is the Chairman asking us to agree to this?

Chairman

Yes, because there is a direct relationship between them. I do not see any other way in which it would be possible to debate them.

Mr. Haughey

With all due respect, they all arise out of rather poor drafting of the original Bill. Perhaps the Minister would begin by outlining for us his new approach to definitions in this regard because that is what we are concerned with here. They all relate to the definition of the different types of persons involved.

Mr. Corish

The phrase, " qualified person ", was included in the original Bill as a drafting device. However, there was some anxiety among professional personnel, particularly the pharmacists, that they would not be included. It was decided to include pharmacist. There are three different types of persons covered by the definition " pharmacist ", the registered pharmaceutical chemist, the registered dispensing chemist and druggist and the registered druggist and they have to be mentioned specifically in the Bill.

Dr. Byrne

I would see a relationship between amendment No. 111 and No. 5, but to take No. 111 with No. 5 would not necessarily be the best way of discussing amendment No. 111, which is a rather detailed amendment. It does not deal with simple definitions.

Mr. Haughey

Amendment No. 111 involves more than a clear definition; it involves the establishing of a register.

Mr. Corish

A register of practitioners.

Chairman

In terms of my original indication inevitably the question of " qualified persons " in amendment No. 111 has to be related even though it is a substantial amendment.

Mr. Haughey

We can deal with that when we come to it. In Deputy Byrne's amendment, " qualified person " will have to be changed if we adopt these other amendments. We can deal with that when we come to Deputy Byrne's amendment.

Dr. Byrne

In other words, we will not be discussing this amendment; it will be changed automatically?

Chairman

In the event of our adopting the prior amendment.

Mr. Haughey

Is the position now that the Minister is abandoning the concept of a " qualified person "? He is proposing, under amendment No. 5, to delete that definition and he proposes to go a different way about it now and define " practitioner ". Is that not what we are at here?

Mr. Corish

Yes, and the intention is also to have a further definition for " pharmacist ", meaning a registered pharmaceutical chemist, a registered dispensing chemist and druggist and a registered druggist. This involves the deletion of the definition of " qualified person ", a practitioner will be described as a registered medical practitioner, a registered dentist and a registered veterinary surgeon.

Dr. O'Connell

Would the Minister elaborate on what is the difference between a registered druggist, a druggist, a registered dispensing chemist and a registered pharmaceutical chemist?

Mr. Corish

As the amendment suggests, we have a registered pharmaceutical chemist, a registered dispensing chemist and a registered druggist. Quite honestly, I cannot define exactly what the differences between them are. The registered dispensing chemist and druggist and the registered druggist were categories introduced in the past to resolve a shortfall in the supply of pharmacists. They no longer can be got as qualifications and their inclusion is to preserve the position of the relatively small number of them who remain.

Dr. O'Connell

Would it be possible to get details of the difference between them? Could this information be circulated to us?

Mr. Corish

Yes.

Dr. O'Connell

It should, if we are going to discuss this.

Dr. Byrne

Is it the intention then to drop this discussion on definition until we get this information?

Mr. Corish

No, the others are defined—the doctor, the veterinary surgeon and the dentist. The difficulty was that exception was taken to the fact that the others were globally described as " pharmacists ".

Mr. Haughey

There is a further difficulty in the Bill as drafted. It would have been necessary to define registered medical practitioner, registered dentist and registered veterinary surgeon. What the Minister is doing now is removing that qualified person definition sector, which was a vague and unsatisfactory definition, and is now going to define pharmacists as such and practitioner as such.

Mr. Corish

There is not much difficulty in regard to " practitioner " but there is a necessity to define exactly what we mean by " pharmacist."

Mr. Haughey

The important thing is that the definition " qualified person " is now going and instead of that we are going to define practitioners and pharmacists separately.

Mr. Corish

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

Anyone who had the experience of learning how to make drugs, who worked in a pharmacy but had never taken a degree, is this one of the categories the Minister is concerned about?

Mr. Corish

No, not necessarily.

Mr. Haughey

He must be registered.

Mr. Briscoe

And anyone who is not registered is in trouble?

Mr. Haughey

The key to everything is registration.

Dr. Byrne

It probably relates to the Pharmacy Act, 1875. The Minister is probably referring to people who would have been registered and obtained a licence under that Act and it had continued on in the family. We should have a clear definition of " druggist " and " pharmacist " in this section.

Mr. Corish

I will get the specific definition as suggested by Deputy O'Connell.

Mr. Haughey

Are they registered with the authorities?

Mr. Corish

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

For the purposes of this Bill registration would put the stamp of legitimacy on it. What we are doing here is defining that " pharmacist " means registered with the appropriate authority, or " practitioner " means registered with the medical authority, the veterinary authority or the dental authority.

Mr. Corish

I do not know what the procedure might be, but I will give a definition. Does it necessarily mean to say that we pass this as it is or wait until we get——

Dr. O'Connell

It would be very wrong for us to pass something about which we know so little. I would want to know the essential difference between a druggist and a registered druggist, a registered dispensing chemist and a registered pharmaceutical chemist.

Mr. Haughey

Surely the point is that " registered " qualifies both dispensing chemist and druggists.

Dr. O'Connell

We have registered medical halls in Ireland but they are not in a position to dispense drugs.

Mr. Haughey

Everything in that definition is covered by " registered ", a registered pharmaceutical chemist, a registered dispensing chemist and druggist.

Dr. O'Connell

Not necessarily.

Mr. Haughey

Yes.

Dr. O'Connell

It is a registered dispensing chemist and druggist and a registered druggist.

Mr. C. Murphy

I imagine if we put in a comma after " chemist " and before " and " that might make the definition clearer.

Dr. O'Connell

The best thing to do would be to get a full definition of what each is, and I think we could postpone this until then.

Dr. Byrne

It is important to get that point clear, because if they are registered they would be entitled. But we would like a definition to see whether under this Act we would like them to remain as people who would be in a position to either dispense or compound medicines.

Chairman

Once we have entered into a debate on a particular amendment we continue to its conclusion by either its acceptance or rejection. There is nothing to inhibit anybody on Report Stage——

Mr. Corish

If some things have to be deferred until Report Stage they will be considered then.

Mr. Haughey

What is intended by these words is that the word " registered " at the start of the second line under the definition of " pharmacist " covers both dispensing chemists and druggists. This is meant to be an omnibus description and anybody to be a pharmacist to come within this definition must be registered, whether he is a pharmaceutical chemist, a dispensing chemist or a druggist. The word " registered " applies to everybody. Is that the Minister's intention?

Mr. Corish

I wanted to explain that these people are defined in the Pharmacy Acts, 1875 to 1962. This amendment is in accordance with the definition given in those Acts.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy O'Connell's problem is that he thinks that " pharmacist " can include " druggist "simpliciter. My interpretation of his worry is that the normal rules of interpretation would mean that “ registered ” in that second part covers both dispensing chemists and druggists. Is it the Minister’s intention in drafting this definition of “ pharmacist ” that everybody must be registered?

Mr. Corish

That is so.

Dr. Mr. O'Connell

With whom?

Mr. Corish

The Pharmaceutical Society.

Dr. O'Connell

Might I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to put that house in order?

Dr. Gibbons

Does this " registered dispensing chemist and druggists " not apply to the one person?

Dr. Loughnane

Yes. A comma before the word " druggist " would change——

Mr. C. Murphy

If you intend to put in a comma I suggest that the word " and " be dropped.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

Not necessarily.

Mr. C. Murphy

The general practical rule is that commas would separate them. Perhaps we should leave out the comma and leave " and ".

Dr. Loughnane

The registered dispensing chemist and druggist is one person, and a registered druggist is another person.

Mr. C. Murphy

We have three involved.

Dr. O'Connell

I take it that the Minister is responsible for ensuring the registration of these different groups. Would I be right in assuming that?

Mr. Corish

The society would determine whether or not they would be registered.

Dr. O'Connell

But any society——

Mr. Corish

The Pharmaceutical Society.

Dr. O'Connell

They must be responsible to the Minister for Health.

Mr. Haughey

And registered under the Pharmaceutical Acts?

Mr. Corish

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

And as " pharmacists " occurs in this Bill, it means a registered chemist or druggist and nobody else.

Chairman

Yes, and we have Report Stage to make it more explicit if we wish. I would draw your attention to this section dealing with qualified persons.

Dr. Gibbons

Amendment No. 2 inserts the definition of " pharmacist " on page 4. Is that correct?

Chairman

Yes, it goes in in alphabetical order.

Dr. Gibbons

It will go between the definitions of " opium poppy " and " prepared opium ". Is this acceptable?

Mr. Haughey

" Pha " comes before " pre ".

Chairman

Is that point disposed of to your satisfaction, Dr. Gibbons?

Dr. Gibbons

Yes.

Dr. Byrne

The phrasing of this amendment is slightly defective because it could read " a registered pharmaceutical chemist, a registered dispensing chemist, employed as a registered dispensing druggist " and also a " registered druggist ". This will be a retail outlet for drugs the distribution of which we are trying to contain in this Act. Deputy Haughey's amendment No. 6 would also cover " or his agents or employees ". Because of that and the implied further dilution of responsibility, implied by the vagueness of the definitions which we have immediately available to us, I would not be content to allow this section to pass as it is. Perhaps the Minister might be in a position to bring in an amendment to amendment No. 111 which we could discuss further on Committee Stage. The Pharmacy Act, 1875, is 100 years old and I would like a greater clarification of " druggist " and the responsibilities of the Pharmaceutical Society in accepting people for registration. If we were to accept amendment No. 6——

Chairman

I think it is very important to note—and I am sure that Deputy Haughey is well aware of the fact—that in the event of amendment No. 5 being agreed, amendment No. 6 could not be moved.

Mr. Haughey

Exactly, my amendment is to the part of the section covering qualified persons in the existing amendment. Amendment No. 5 is to delete that. If that goes, my amendment No. 6 falls.

Dr. O'Connell

The point I thought important is whether a registered dispensing chemist and druggist and a registered druggist enjoy the same rights and privileges as a registered pharmaceutical chemist, or whether he is a subservient person.

Mr. Corish

A registered dispensing chemist or druggist is for all practical purposes on an equal footing with the registered pharmaceutical chemist. A registered druggist has not quite the same rights as either of these.

Dr. O'Connell

Before I would be keen on having this agreed, I would have to know his rights and his duties vis-�-vis the registered pharmaceutical chemist. It is important to know this. We are working in a vacuum unless we know this.

Mr. Corish

For the purposes of this Bill the three grades are being treated equally in that their individual rights are being protected. For the purposes of the Pharmacy Acts, however, these are not quite the same for all three.

Dr. O'Connell

Could the Minister elaborate on that or give us any idea of how they differ?

Mr. Corish

A registered druggist cannot dispense medical prescriptions.

Dr. O'Connell

That is very important. It alters the whole idea.

Mr. Corish

A subsequent section in the Act makes it clear that we do not change his rights in that respect.

Dr. O'Connell

He cannot dispense medical prescriptions.

Dr. Byrne

If the Minister could possibly undertake, between this and the next sitting, to bring in a subsection under my amendment No. 111, we could have a discussion and the time to look into the powers that a druggist and a chemist have. I would be very reluctant to agree to accept this at this point in time.

Mr. Esmonde

Have the Minister and his Department discussed the question of the definitions and the categories of the pharmacists and registered druggists with the bodies that actually discipline and deal with these people?

Mr. Corish

I must confess that I was a bit thrown as well when I saw the three descriptions of " pharmacists " and what the function of a druggist as distinct from a dispensing chemist is I could not define entirely.

Mr. Esmonde

A " pharmacist ", as I understand it, is the only person who can dispense a prescription. A " druggist " cannot deal with a prescription but if the person wants something from the shelf which is exactly the same as that prescribed, the druggist may give it out.

Mr. Corish

That would be a proprietary medicine?

Mr. Esmonde

Yes, that is the way the druggist got over it. There has been a certain tightening up in the profession on this matter. That is why the three categories are mentioned here.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Unless this matter is cleared up we will make no progress.

Mr. Corish

I am informed that these three categories of pharmacist druggists are defined in the 1962 Act. If we read through that fairly quickly we will know where we stand.

Dr. O'Connell

Would it be possible to proceed, perhaps with an unorthodox approach, without that and leave it in abeyance until we get this matter clarified?

Chairman

We have many other amendments to discuss yet. We are debating them en bloc.

Mr. Briscoe

The 1962 Act might solve the problem.

Dr. Byrne

I would not be happy about having a synopsis read out of that Act.

Mr. Corish

It was updated in 1962.

Dr. O'Connell

We may need a legal definition.

Mr. Corish

It may not be very brief:

(a) In relation to a dispensing chemist and druggist, registered in the register of dispensing chemists and druggists,

(b) in relation to a druggist, registered in the register of registered druggists in Ireland, and

(c) in relation to a pharmaceutical chemist, registered in the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists for Ireland.

Dr. O'Connell

Put the mighty resources of the Department of Health to work on that project.

Mr. Haughey

I am not a technical person—like Deputy Byrne and Deputy O'Connell—but all we are concerned with in this section is the definition of " pharmacist " as it is used throughout the Bill. The definition, to my mind, is perfectly adequate—it means anybody who is registered as any of these three things with the appropriate registration body, which is the body set up under the Pharmacy Acts.

Mr. Esmonde

I agree with Deputy Haughey. I do not think there is any problem arising under this.

Dr. O'Connell

The qualified person enjoys certain privileges which the unqualified person does not. This is the point of definitions.

Mr. Haughey

The whole purpose of these definitions is to bring the pharmacists within the ambit of this Bill.

Mr. Corish

The three categories.

Mr. Haughey

To make them liable to the discipline of this Bill.

Dr. O'Connell

It is hard to have some person liable who is not qualified.

Mr. Haughey

That is a different day's work. What we are concerned with here are people who are registered under the Pharmacy Acts and we are defining them as pharmacists for the purpose of this Bill, and brought within the disciplines imposed by this Bill.

Mr. Corish

It merely maintains the situation; it does not add to any of the functions in which they have been engaged.

Mr. C. Murphy

It deals with the narrow contents of this Bill.

Mr. Wyse

Deputy O'Connell seems to be pointing out a weakness in the definition. It is important at this stage that we get this cleared up.

Dr. Byrne

I am quite happy with that definition.

Chairman

Am I to take it Deputy Byrne's unhappiness is resolved at this stage?

Dr. Byrne

No, not by any means. I am quite happy with the definition. This Bill, however, is not only dealing with the definitions but it is also limiting the number of people who have access to and who will deal in administering these drugs. If we find, going through this, that a registered druggist was someone other than what we would believe to be a retail chemist, we could define " pharmacist " as meaning a registered pharmaceutical dispensing chemist and given the powers of administering the drugs which were already under the Schedule to a registered pharmaceutical dispensing chemist. In this way we would have a limitation of persons qualified under the Bill to deal with these drugs. While the definition of registered druggist and chemist is clear from the 1962 Act what we want to define is " pharmacist ".

Mr. Wyse

Is the Minister satisfied with the definition?

Mr. Corish

Yes, the vast majority of the people we are talking about are pharmaceutical chemists.

Dr. O'Connell

Can I take it that these dispensing chemists and druggists are registered? Anyone can be registered; anyone can set up a register, can call a group together and are registered. It does not mean anything. They would not have the same qualifications or rights to dispense as——

Mr. Corish

The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland are satisfied that they have the requisite qualifications, otherwise they would not register them.

Dr. O'Connell

This is not quite right. They are registered under the Act but are they registered with the same powers as the pharmaceutical chemist? We have to decide that because they will have the same powers as the pharmaceutical chemist in this Bill.

Mr. Haughey

We are not conferring any powers on anybody. We are making people subject to discipline.

Dr. O'Connell

My understanding was that they were not of the same calibre as a pharmaceutical chemist and were not able to dispense prescriptions. There are a number of these in Ireland.

Mr. Corish

If the Deputy looks at the top of page 7 he will see that the Minister for Health, as Deputy Haughey said, is preserving an existing position of these people. He is making it clear that he is adding nothing to them by this Bill. He has provided " that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as enabling the Minister to make regulations under this Act authorising a registered druggist to keep open shop for the compounding or dispensing of medical prescriptions ". In the definitions, we are merely endeavouring to identify people who may have control of drugs in certain circumstances, but not altering those circumstances.

Dr. O'Connell

He may not keep open shop and still have them.

Mr. Corish

He could dispense them in a hospital.

Dr. O'Connell

Is he qualified to do that?

Mr. Corish

He is.

Dr. O'Connell

He is fully qualified to dispense in a hospital?

Mr. Corish

This Bill prohibits him from keeping open shop for the dispensing of drugs. In other words, having a retail pharmacy. They are a small group of people who have acquired rights which were preserved when the Pharmacy Act came into being.

Dr. Loughnane

Are the drugs in hospital catered for as in an ordinary shop? The drugs are supplied in the hospital, is that not similar to an open shop because they are paid for?

Mr. Corish

They are.

Mr. Haughey

The hospital would be a private chemist.

Dr. O'Connell

Subsection (c) of section 1 reads :

" qualified person " means a registered medical practitioner, a registered dentist, a registered veterinary surgeon and any person who for the time being is lawfully keeping open shop for the sale of poisons under the Pharmacy Acts, 1875 to 1962, or who is entitled to keep open shop for such sale and is for the time being employed or engaged in compounding, dispensing or supplying medicines at any hospital or health clinic;

Mr. Corish

That has only significance in relation to section 4 (2) and 5 (2). It has no meaning anywhere else in the Bill.

Dr. O'Connell

That is the point.

Mr. Haughey

A " qualified person " as a definition is going; Amendment 5 is to delete it and we are going to substitute " practitioner " and " pharmacist " instead.

Dr. O'Connell

The whole meaning is the same.

Mr. Corish

The effect is the same.

Dr. O'Connell

Yes.

Mr. Corish

Some people's feelings were hurt, their professional pride was hurt by the use of the word " qualified ". In other words they wanted to be named.

Dr. O'Connell

If need be, we can dispute it on Report Stage.

Mr. Corish

I will circulate an amplification of the definition.

Dr. Byrne

Would the Minister also get a synopsis of their powers, of what they are entitled to do? Can they fill a prescription?

Mr. Corish

They sell poisons which was one of their main functions.

Chairman

Could I get agreement on amendment No. 2 at this stage? We have spent almost three-quarters of an hour on this so far.

Dr. Byrne

I do not think time should be of paramount importance on this Bill.

Chairman

But I believe we have resolved the points raised. May I ask Deputy Byrne, since we are on amendment No. 2 which impinges on amendment No. 111 if he would care to make his points in relation to amendment No. 111 because, inevitably No. 2 is related to it.

Mr. Haughey

In view of the fact that the Minister is changing his ground in his definition, then in fairness Deputy Byrne should be permitted to withdraw No. 111 as phrased and re-phrase it to cater for the new definition inserted by the Minister. In other words, instead of a " qualified person " in No. 111, Deputy Byrne could put in, " pharmacist and practitioner ".

Chairman

That is sensible. On Report Stage one can put in an entirely new amendment in the context of a new understanding of " qualified person ".

Mr. Haughey

Between now and when we come to section 40 which, by the look of things will be after Christmas, Deputy Byrne can withdraw amendment No. 111 and rephrase it. Is that in order?

Mr. Corish

They are registered by their appropriate statutory registration bodies.

Mr. Haughey

My point is that Deputy Byrne's amendment was put down in all good faith when the definition " qualified person " was included in the Bill. The Minister is now trying to delete this definition " qualified person " and, therefore, Deputy Byrne should be given an opportunity to withdraw his amendment and re-phrase it on the basis of " qualified persons " being withdrawn and " pharmacist and practitioner " being substituted.

Mr. Corish

That is all right with me.

Chairman

Does Deputy Byrne agree?

Dr. Byrne

It is an excellent suggestion.

Mr. Esmonde

There are in other countries registered herbalists. Are they recognised in this country?

Mr. Corish

No, neither are faith healers.

Mr. Haughey

I want to ask a question on my amendment No. 7. The Minister is now going to delete from the definition section " qualified person " and put in " practitioner ". That means a " registered medical practitioner, a registered dentist, a registered veterinary surgeon ". Then he describes separately the registration authorities—the Dental Board, the Medical Registration Council and the Veterinary Council. It seems to me that he does not tie up one with the other. " Practitioner " means a registered medical practitioner. He does not say he is registered with the appropriate registration authority. It seems to me, as you read it that a medical practitioner could be registered with anybody. I may be wrong but——

Mr. Corish

It is confirmed by existing law——

Mr. Haughey

Where?

Mr. Corish

In the Medical Practitioners Act.

Mr. Haughey

I am in a difficulty about amendment No. 4 and it is the same difficulty with the original Bill that caused me to put down amendment No. 7. There is a new definition of " practitioner " and it is said that means a registered medical practitioner, registered dentist or registered dental surgeon but the Minister does not say with whom they are registered.

Mr. Corish

The three registration authorities which are recognised by Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Haughey

It does not say that they are registered with the appropriate authorities.

Dr. Gibbons

The adoption of the amendment is essential if doctors are to have the right to move from one part of the EEC to another.

Mr. Corish

That is another amendment.

Mr. Haughey

It was the difficulty over this question of just whom they are registered with that caused me to spell it out in amendment No. 7. A registered medical practitioner goes now and it will just be practitioner which means a person registered as such by the Medical Registration Council. As it stands there is no connection in the Bill between practitioner or pharmacists and the registration body with whom they are supposed to be registered.

Mr. Corish

In other words the Deputy wants to spell out what the Medical Registration Council is?

Dr. O'Connell

No. Deputy Haughey means that in the case of a registered medical practitioner he wants to put in also registered with the Medical Registration Council. After a registered dentist he wants the name of the council he is registered with.

Mr. Corish

I take the point; I will accept that.

Mr. Haughey

The Minister will put down his own amendment to meet my point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, line 29, after " smoking " to insert " oral consumption or injection ".

I am not too sure of my ground here, but it seems that the present definition of " prepared opium " was inadequate. As it reads, " prepared opium " is confined to opium which is prepared for smoking and includes dross and any other residues. I thought it inadequate and that prepared opium should include opium which is prepared for smoking or oral consumption or injection. I am informed that opium can be imbibed in any of these three ways, smoking, consumed orally or injected. If we want to make the definition of prepared opium comprehensive, we should include these two methods of taking it in the definition.

Mr. Esmonde

Does injection imply per rectum as well?

Mr. Corish

I must confess that the only way I thought opium could be taken is through smoking. Deputy Haughey suggested that it might be consumed orally or by injection. I must say I am not sufficiently conversant with opium to know whether or not it can be taken other than by the one method, putting it in a pipe and puffing it.

Mr. Haughey

Ex Abundante Cautelae. Would it be any harm? Would it not be as well to put it in?

Dr. O'Connell

There are opium alkaloids which can be given by injection.

Mr. Corish

We are not talking about opium here as such. We are talking about a specific thing technically known as prepared opium, which is defined in the 1912 Narcotics Convention of the Hague. It is a specified thing and has nothing at all to do with opium generically.

Mr. Haughey

I am not concerned with opium generically.

Mr. Corish

This definition is concerned purely and simply with a substance known as " prepared opium ", which is a special form of opium.

Mr. Haughey

If we are going to use the phrase, let it be in an accepted form.

Mr. Corish

We are only using it in one section of the Bill.

Dr. O'Connell

This is an internationally accepted definition.

Mr. Haughey

Section 16 states : a person shall not (a) smoke or otherwise use prepared opium. Even for the purposes of section 16 it is contemplated that it will be used other than by smoking. Therefore, it is a reasonable precaution to extend the definition of " prepared opium " to include its preparation for oral consumption or injection.

Mr. Corish

Section 16 deals only with opium in a form suitable for smoking.

Dr. Loughnane

It can be rubbed in, snuff.

Mr. Corish

This section is exactly the same as it stands in the 1934 Act.

Mr. Haughey

I am not concerned with what it says, I am concerned with what I find. Section 16 says " A person shall not (a) smoke or otherwise use prepared opium " . . . If we are going to contemplate for the purposes of section 16 an otherwise use, then surely it is sensible to put that extension into the definition of what " prepared opium " is.

Mr. Corish

One could not inject it or eat it.

Dr. O'Connell

It is an internationally accepted term called, " prepared opium ".

Mr. Haughey

The purpose of section 1 is to define for the purpose of this legislation the phrases used throughout the legislation not what they mean internationally. We are concerned in this interpretation section in setting out our terms of reference in so far as this piece of legislation is concerned. It seems that this is a sensible extension of the definition.

Dr. Byrne

I suggest that after " for smoking " we insert the words " or other use ".

Mr. Haughey

Is it the Minister's contention that the words I am proposing to put in by way of extension of the definition are unnecessary?

Mr. Corish

I am wondering are they necessary, because as it is it is in accordance with International Convention. I am at a loss to know how otherwise prepared opium can be used. I do not see any harm in the words being used but whether it is necessary or not is another matter.

Dr. O'Connell

It is specially dried and prepared for smoking.

Mr. Corish

The definition is in accordance with International Convention. So far as I am aware, we are pretty well bound to the International Convention which is pretty definitive in respect of prepared opium.

Mr. Haughey

I suggest that is an error of thinking on the Minister's part. We are not concerned here with adhering to the International Convention; we are concerned with the drafting of the Bill. The definition section is put in to give definitions of phrases which are subsequently used in the Bill; it has nothing to do with International Convention. In the Bill prepared opium is restricted to opium prepared for smoking, whereas section 16 contemplates it being used otherwise.

Mr. Corish

It talks about opium prepared for smoking; one can either use it or smoke it.

Dr. O'Connell

Section 16 (1) states : " A person shall not smoke or otherwise use prepared opium . . ." Deputy Haughey is asking that if we say " prepared opium ", which I accept is a drying process, that the words otherwise used are irrelevant and superfluous.

Mr. Corish

Maybe one could chew it.

Mr. Haughey

One can chew it.

Mr. Corish

Would it not be covered in section 16 (1) which states: " A person shall not smoke or otherwise use prepared opium . . ." Is the amendment necessary?

Mr. Haughey

I think it is. The very incorporation of " otherwise use " in section 16 means that we should extend it to cover prepared opium, whether prepared for smoking, injection, oral consumption or any other way. I cannot see anything to be lost by it.

Mr. Corish

When the Deputy talks about injecting or taking it orally he is talking about opium itself?

Mr. Haughey

No. Once I bring in to my Bill a phrase " prepared opium " I must spell out what I mean by it. That is what one does in the interpretation section. It is the drafters of the Bill who have brought in " prepared opium " as a concept for us. Once one brings it in as a concept in that way then one must cover all possible aspects of it.

Dr. Gibbons

May I ask is the Minister satisfied that the definition he is quoting from convention are sufficient to cover modern times? The Minister quoted the Hague Convention of 1912—which is a long time back—and we should not make the mistake of accepting those conventions unless we are sure they cover the modern and the future situation. That is in support of what Deputy Haughey has said. There was a medical product of opium called " opium preparata " which was the prepared opium. Maybe it has gone now.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

Was it for oral consumption or injection?

Dr. Gibbons

Oral.

Mr. Haughey

May I put this proposition to the Minister? If the Minister does not put in my words in the section, and if somebody otherwise uses, by way of injection, opium in any shape or form they are taken outside the scope of this Bill and it is not an offence.

Mr. Corish

I am informed Deputy, contrary to what I said before, that the last convention was in 1912—quite a long time ago. This does not necessarily mean to say that the convention was just left there. It is under constant review.

Mr. Haughey

That just proves its excellence.

Mr. Corish

It has been and is under constant review all the time and no necessity was found to change it. If the convention adopts Deputy Haughey's suggestion, the possibility is that it might be included. So far, there does not seem to be a case to describe it as otherwise in the Bill. If it is covered in a very wide way, I do not know how courts would interpret it. It says " smoke or otherwise use prepared opium ". What is in mind I do not know, apart from what the Deputy thinks himself—that it might be injection.

Mr. Haughey

" Smoke or otherwise use prepared opium " and the Minister's own definition mean that prepared opium is totally restricted to opium prepared for smoking. Section 16 subsection (1) is nonsense.

Mr. Esmonde

This amendment deals with a definition of a product which is known by a certain name. Section 16 deals with the use of the product. That is the distinction between the definition section and section 16. Neither conflict. That is the simple meaning in the section as I see it.

Mr. Corish

As Deputy Haughey will be aware, opium is included in the Schedule under three forms, opium whether raw, prepared or medicinal. The special problem has arisen all along in relation to opium held in the international scene where special forms were prepared by the addition of some substances to it for smoking. That is a special category. It is merely in adherence to the conventions that we treat it specially in section 16, so that there is clearly identified provision in our law which shows the approach to prepared opium. Opium is prepared in the same way as the tobacco leaf is prepared for smoking. It becomes a totally different substance. I think Deputy Haughey's concern seems to be that if we do not control the chewing and otherwise of prepared opium, then people can do this having regard to its lack of definition under the Bill. I do not think this is necessarily so. I think the " otherwise use " has to follow the preparation of opium because it becomes a different form of opium.

Dr. O'Connell

If it is only for smoking, why say " or otherwise "?

Mr. Corish

You can chew tobacco which is primarily intended for smoking.

Dr. Loughnane

Is the Minister guarding against future progress in the manufacture of this business so that it could not be used as snuff or an inhalent?

Mr. Corish

I do not know whether or not opium can be inhaled.

Dr. Loughnane

Yes, it can, through a modern inhalent.

Mr. Haughey

That would be smoking.

Dr. O'Connell

No, it would not be covered by smoking.

Chairman

Could I ask the Minister if on Report Stage he would be prepared to consider reviewing the situation?

Mr. Haughey

It is too fundamental for that. We must decide whether this Bill will be logically drafted or not, and it seems to me that as it is put before us at present there is complete conflict between the definition section and section 16 (1) (a). It was that section which lead me to put down my amendments. In view of what Deputy Loughnane now says perhaps we should include inhalation as well.

Mr. Briscoe

I understand that morphine is a derivative of opium poppy from which opium is made. Therefore, it can be injected. It has to be prepared surely.

Mr. Corish

No.

Mr. Haughey

Prepared opium only appears in this Bill once, apart from the definition section, and that is in section 16 (1) (a).

Chairman

Would the Minister be prepared to delete opium prepared for smoking and insert the words " other usage "? Perhaps Deputy Haughey might not persist in the specific use of the word " injection " which of itself is——

Mr. Haughey

You know me well enough, Chairman, to know that I am not going to adopt a difficult stance on any issue. All I am concerned with is getting the Bill right. That is what we are here for and that is why we are a special committee—to make sure the Bill is right.

Mr. Esmonde

The whole thing is this : prepared opium is a known product prepared for smoking. That is the definition of the product. Section 16 deals with its usage. Surely that covers what Deputy Haughey is getting at in his amendment. By changing the definition as suggested by Deputy Haughey, you are taking it out of the category that it is internationally known as—we are importing a completely different product that is not known internationally. This is the difficulty as I see it.

Mr. Haughey

You would have to take the words " otherwise use " out of section 16 (1) (a) and I think the general view of the Committee is that they should not be taken out.

Mr. Esmonde

Usage is a different thing.

Chairman

I see the distinction Deputy Esmonde is making. Certain activities relating to opium are quite different from the definition of prepared opium as such.

Mr. Haughey

" Prepared opium " is the phrase used in section 16 (1) (a) which contemplates prepared opium being smoked or otherwise used. If you want to do that, the definition must include its preparation for smoking or other use.

Dr. O'Connell

What it means is this : while the international definition is that prepared opium is opium used for smoking, to prepare for every eventuality, put in " or otherwise use ".

Mr. Esmonde

Yes.

Dr. O'Connell

It may never arise but you have taken the precaution of putting it in there. That is an added safeguard for everybody. That is all they need.

Mr. Haughey

If it is only prepared for smoking how can you otherwise use it?

Dr. O'Connell

It is prepared for smoking but there are very resourceful people in the world who would find uses for it, even though it is prepared for smoking.

Chairman

That has been agreed. Inhalation and the rest of it——

Dr. Byrne

Let me quote from the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971, in the UK. This Bill has been drafted to a very large extent from it. The section dealing with prepared opium is just a blueprint. It is practically a photostat copy. Each section is identical word for word. To quote section 28 of this Act:

(a) It is an offence for a person to smoke or otherwise use prepared opium;

(b) to frequent a place used for the purpose of opium smoking, or

(c) to have in his possession

(i) any pipes or other utensils made or adapted for use in connection with smoking of opium, being pipes or utensils which have been used by him or with his knowledge and permission in that connection or which he intends to use or permit others to use in that connection, or

(ii) any utensils which have been used by him or with his knowledge and permission in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking.

There is no reason why we should follow the British Act. We know that prepared opium can be chewed and the opium extracted. It is a very common form of opium abuse in the United States. It is abused and used by very young people over there.

Mr. Haughey

What is, the prepared or the opium?

Dr. Byrne

The prepared opium for chewing. I would agree that you would have to include everything on this section. We are only at the beginning of the Bill. We are only at the definitions section. If we follow the Hague Convention of 1912 blindfolded as the British and the French have done we may find later on that there is a loophole. For instance in section 16 (1) (c) covers pipes and utensils made or adopted for use in connection with the smoking of opium. I would hate to see us bring in legislation which could be torn to shreds by a capable lawyer, such as Deputy Haughey.

Mr. Haughey

I am not a lawyer.

Dr. Byrne

Deputy Esmonde?

Mr. Esmonde

As an incapable lawyer, I see a clear distinction between the two. Section 16 covers just what Deputy Haughey is getting at in his definition.

Mr. Haughey

I am not going to pursue this indefinitely. I cannot escape the conviction in my mind that if you accept the definition and the wording of section 16 (1) (a) you cannot convict a person who takes opium which is not prepared, and chews it.

Chairman

We will have to come to some finality on this. Has the Minister anything further to say?

Mr. Corish

There is not a loophole in that because he could be charged and prosecuted for possession of the opium.

Mr. Haughey

That is a different section of the Bill. We are concerned here with smoking or otherwise using opium.

Dr. O'Connell

Say Deputy Haughey's amendment is accepted and say there is not oral consumption, there is merely chewing and it is not consumed, and he just spits it out after five minutes, that is not oral consumption——

Mr. Haughey

He is otherwise using it. He prepared it in the first place for that use.

Dr. O'Connell

Yes.

Mr. Corish

What does he get out of it? Is he consuming the juice?

Dr. O'Connell

Yes, but he is not consuming it.

Mr. Haughey

He is otherwise using it.

Chairman

Will Deputy Haughey put it to a division?

Mr. Haughey

I am very reluctant to do that. At this early stage I do not want to divide the Committee. We are all concerned to get a good Bill and I would rather if we could get a consensus on it. Has the Minister any suggestion to make?

Mr. Corish

We will have a look at the convention again and see whether the Deputy's intention can be accommodated or if it is necessary to do it.

Mr. Haughey

We are here to try to improve the Bill. If we, in our combined wisdom, think the Bill should be changed, then let us change it. We are not going to rigidly adhere to the original draft just because it is the original draft. If we can see a flaw in it, that is what we are here for in the Special Committee : to try and improve, with our combined knowledge and experience. As I say, I would be reluctant to divide the Committee at this stage of our proceedings. If the Minister will guarantee me that he will have a very open look at this between now and Report Stage—and I mean an open look—and consider the arguments I put forward on the merits and not just adhere to the original draft because it is the original draft——

Mr. Corish

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Haughey. My intention is to have an open look at this Bill because it is a very complicated and very technical Bill being dealt with by lawyers and by the medical profession. But I certainly will do as the Deputy suggests and have a further open look at it.

Dr. O'Connell

Would you be bound by some of these international conventions?

Mr. Corish

Internationally we subscribe to them, but whether this puts a dent in the convention or will improve it, I do not know.

Chairman

On that clear understanding, would Deputy Haughey be prepared to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. Haughey

On the understanding that the Minister will very seriously look at my arguments and, if he does not accept them, that he will give his reason.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following new definition:

"‘ practitioner ' means a registered medical practitioner, a registered dentist and a registered veterinary surgeon;".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 5 :

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 33 to 39, to delete the definition of " qualified person ".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following :—

"‘ Registered medical practitioner ' means a person registered as such by the Medical Registration Council or entitled to practise in the State by virtue of the provisions of the European Communities Act, 1972.

‘ registered dentist ' means a person registered by the Dental Board or entitled to practice in the State by virtue of the provisions of the European Communities Act, 1972.

‘ registered veterinary surgeon ' means a person registered with the Veterinary Council or entitled to practise in the State by virtue of the provisions of the European Communities Act, 1972."

I put this down for elaboration. The Commission has issued a directive whereby doctors will be able to practise throughout the Community and it is only a question of time until dentists and veterinary surgeons come within the same sort of provisions. I thought it might be wise if we anticipated that. I am not sure if the appropriate registration authorities would automatically register EEC professional people in pursuance of the directive on request and put down these amendments to get elaboration on that point. That seemed to be the best way I could do it. The European Communities Act, 1972, covers all these matters and I thought that was an omnibus way of putting it, that anybody entitled to practise here under those Acts would be included under the definitions.

Dr. O'Connell

I would have thought that before they could practise here, whilst there will be provision for free movement, they will have to register with the Medical Registration Council in Ireland first.

Mr. Haughey

Is that so?

Mr. Corish

I fully accept the principle of what the Deputy is at but I wonder whether this is the Bill in which to frame the Community's end of it. So far as the medical profession, legislation must be enacted soon to give effect to the EEC directives and I think that is what the Deputy has in mind. It will be done in the legislation before the operative date.

Mr. Haughey

Therefore, it would be omnibus and not just for the purposes of this Bill?

Mr. Corish

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

All I am concerned with is that an EEC doctor, dentist or veterinary surgeon, entitled to practise here is within the confines of this Bill.

Mr. Corish

In accepting the amendment we will try to be satisfied that the definition is wide enough to allow for registration of nationals of other countries consistent with our EEC obligations.

Dr. Byrne

The bones of amendment No. 111 was entirely related to the European Communities Act, not only for movement within the EEC but in the UK. The amendment proposed that it would be compulsory for a person to be registered here before they could prescribe any of the drugs contained in this Bill. My amendment was drafted along such lines whereby there would be a vehicle for the registration and whereby retailers of drugs would have access to the register. They would be informed as changes take place, not only in EEC countries but also within the health board areas here. I have reasons for specifying that also. I would be reluctant to have registered medical practitioner meaning a person from Germany or some other EEC country who could come in here and prescribe drugs when we are not fully au fait with all the different aspects of their qualifications. If they were to come into this, as Deputy Haughey suggested, in time there might be freedom of movement of veterinary surgeons and dentists, and I contend there might be freedom of movement of pharmacists as well.

Mr. Haughey

I am accepting the Minister's assurance on this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Haughey

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, line 49, to delete " or other thing ".

This amendment needs some elaboration. The Bill reads :

" For the purposes of this Act any controlled drug or other thing ".

That seems very vague.

Mr. Corish

It seems the draftsman's intention by the use of these words " or other thing " was to avoid repeating the phrase contained in the Act " that any pipes or utensils made or adapted for use in connection with smoking of opium or forged or fraudulently altered prescriptions ". I do not know whether that is the best way of defining it in the absence of an alternative term expressing the provision that is contained in the Act.

Mr. Haughey

What we are concerned with here is getting at the situation where the person who has control of it or in his custody to extend that to another person over whom he has control. In other words, to agree within the ambit of the Bill either I have a controlled drug, or the controlled drug, is in the possession of somebody over whom I have control, or is in my custody. I think it was far too wide to say " or other thing ".

Mr. Corish

I will have a look at it later on.

Mr. Haughey

You do not want to go into " pipes or other contents " all over again, but surely some less omnibus form of words might be used.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: " That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill "

Dr. Gibbons

If a person has control, I take it that the courts would have to define it if the situation ever arises.

Mr. Corish

Could the Deputy elaborate on that?

Dr. Gibbons

" For the purpose of this Act any controlled drug or other thing of which a person has control or which is in the custody of another who is either under the person's control, " that that particular control will have to be decided by the courts.

Mr. Esmonde

It will depend on the facts in each case.

Question put and agreed to.