Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Feb 1956

Vol. 154 No. 6

Opticians Bill, 1955—Report and Final Stages.

Minister for Health (Mr. O'Higgins)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 6, Section 10, to delete sub-section (1), lines 12, 13 and 14, and substitute:—

(1) Before the 1st day of December in each election year, six persons shall be elected by registered opticians to be members of the board.

(2) Subject to any regulations under sub-section (3) of this section for the time being in force, of the six persons referred to in sub-section (1) of this section—

(a) five shall be registered ophthalmic opticians, and

(b) one shall be a registered dispensing optician.

(3) The Minister may by regulations substitute other numbers totalling six for the numbers specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of this section.

Section 10 of the Bill provides for the election of the optician members to the second and subsequent boards. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that five of the six opticians to be elected to the boards shall be registered opthalmic opticians and the other one a registered dispensing optician. Sub-section (3) of the amendment will enable this allocation of the six seats to be altered at a later date should this be considered desirable.

It was argued on the Committee Stage by Deputy Esmonde that there should be at least two dispensing opticians on the board, since their membership of the association, which they have recently formed, is 178. According to his figures, membership of the Ophthalmic Opticians' Association is 149 and there are also 133 ophthalmic surgeons. With 11 members on the board a division of four medical practitioners, five ophthalmic opticians, one dispensing optician and one other person would ensure that no one interest would have a majority on the board. It will be necessary for any particular interest moving a proposal before the board to convince at least one other person of its general desirability.

The Association of Ophthalmic Opticians have always held that the dispensing opticians would work with the medical practitioners. While this may or may not be true it is considered best that the combined representation of the medical practitioners and dispensing opticians should not give them an overall majority on the board.

The Association of Dispensing Opticians is a very recent creation and one which is still in process of formation. They have not the same standing or experience as the Association of Ophthalmic Opticians. Finally, the possibility of varying the numbers, so that their total does not any time exceed six is an easy method of resolving any difficulties regarding representations which may arise in future. I accordingly recommend this amendment to the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 might be taken together for the purpose of discussion.

Dr. Ryan

With reference to amendment. No. 2 in my name, I think that any organised section represented on a board of this kind should have at least two representatives. As we all know, it sometimes happens that one particular person may not be able to uphold his point of view where there is a large number on the other side. I think, that in all fairness, we should see that both interests have at least two representatives. The same thing should apply equally to ophthalmic opticians and to dispensing opticians.

I presume that when the election to this board comes on the two registers will both be on the way and my only aim is that two should come from each side and that they should vote as to who the other two should be.

I do not know why the Minister should argue that the interests of dispensing opticians and of the medical men should coincide in all cases. On certain questions they would be together, but there may be other questions on which they would be opposed to each other. On the last occasion when we were discussing this Bill, Deputy Esmonde gave certain figures and the Minister quoted these figures again to-day. Whether they are correct or not I do not know, but I do not think it would alter his argument in any way. I would be inclined to press amendment No. 2 unless there is a very strong argument against it.

Dr. Esmonde

I find myself in rather a difficult position in regard to this amendment because I do not really understand the method of election. It appears that we are going to have in the register of opticians two separate registers and, as I see the position, according to the Minister's amendment, it would appear that my figures are being unanimously accepted by all sides of the House. In that case we have approximately 170 dispensing opticians and 140 ophthalmic opticians voting to elect a register. As the matter stands at the moment with the Minister's amendments, there must be five ophthalmic opticians and only one dispensing optician on the register. That seems to me to be a negation of democracy.

I know the Minister has given a great deal of thought to this matter and I feel grateful to the Minister that he has given way to a lot of the suggestions and representations put before him. I feel that the fairest solution to this question is that the Minister should accept amendment No. 2, paragraph (b), which would mean that at least one would be a dispensing optician. It would then leave the question open to the voters whether more than one dispensing optician might be elected. However, we have not yet reached the stage of electing members.

We are legislating in the Bill for the purpose of setting up this board. In the first instance, the board will be nominated by the Minister. As far as I can recollect, a period of three years will elapse before actual elections will take place. Judging from the Minister's amendment here, it would seem to me that he intends to nominate five ophthalmic opticians, one dispensing optician, four ophthalmic surgeons — as I understand it, these ophthalmic surgeons will be from private practice; I think that is more or less on the official record now — and one other person who, I take it, will be entirely above reproach and neutral in every way.

In view of the fact that the Minister is setting up this board for a period and that this board will have plenty of opportunities of showing its worth, would the Minister not consider changing (b) to read: "at least one shall be a registered dispensing optician"? I do not think there would be any doubt then about the representation being fair. It seems the Minister is setting up the board as he so desires and as, no doubt, he has been advised by his advisers, and that would seem to me to be a safeguard for everyone concerned for the future. It leaves the position that this will be a fair and neutral board for all the interests concerned. After the prescribed period of three years, they may then elect a further board, having had three years' experience of the state of affairs that then existed.

I do not wish to press the Minister on this point because I know this is a difficult Bill. I know it is a Bill which possibly was created before he himself came into the office which he now holds. There are many contending interests concerned, but I do feel that, were he to accept my suggestion, he would satisfy the wishes of everybody, and by the wishes of everybody I mean the ophthalmic opticians, the ophthalmic surgeons and the dispensing opticians.

Mr. O'Higgins

I regret I must say to Deputy Dr. Esmonde and Deputy Dr. Ryan that I cannot depart from the compromise suggested in the amendment which I have tabled. The position as it appears to me is, first of all, that this Bill would never, I am convinced, have been introduced into the Oireachtas by any Minister for Health, were it not for the insistent demand made by the ophthalmic opticians. I think their association throughout the years has been seeking some form of legislation which would set down and establish certain standards of conduct for those engaged in this service to the people. I am not in the slightest bit critical of the dispensing opticians when I say that they only formed a body, so far as I am aware, within the last two or three months.

Perhaps Deputy Dr. Esmonde is quite correct — I have no contrary information — in the numbers he quotes. I am quite sure the number of dispensing opticians who would qualify to be registered as opticians under this Bill when it becomes law would greatly exceed the number of ophthalmic opticians, but I do not think that is or should be the sole test as to membership of the board. While the ophthalmic opticians may be a minority in actual numbers, they nevertheless are the people who are engaged solely in the practice of optics and in providing this form of service to people; whereas the dispensing opticians — again I am not being critical of them in the slightest and I do not intend to be— are people who, largely speaking, engage in the dispensing of spectacles very much as a side-line. They may be pharmaceutical chemists; they may be druggists; they may be jewellers; they may be carrying on quite a number of other forms of activity which represent their main source of livelihood and, incidentally, they may engage in the sale of spectacles.

I feel, as the House will see in a later amendment, that to the extent that these people have for a number of years been engaged in the sale of spectacles and have been recognised by the State as sellers of spectacles, it would be wrong that they should not qualify for registration as opticians. Accordingly, if the House accepts a later amendment, they will so qualify, but that qualification, although it does increase their number, in my opinion, should not be regarded as in any way outweighing the primary concern of the ophthalmic opticians in this legislation, in the board that will be established and in the proper working of the standards hoped to be achieved by the legislation.

The board will consist of 11 persons. I feel it would be wrong if that board could be operated in the interests of any particular body or group of persons interested in the work of opticians. With the number now proposed, it will not be possible for any of the different interests to exercise a controlling influence on the board. Nevertheless, the ophthalmic opticians, who number five, will, I think, be given a very definite say in the manner in which the board should function, but will not be given a dominancy. I can assure Deputy Dr. Esmonde and the House generally that the amendment now proposed, while it represents a compromise, is one to which a considerable amount of thought and consideration has been given before it was tabled. Therefore, I feel it is an amendment that I can stand upon and I must accordingly tell Deputy Dr. Ryan that I cannot accept the amendment which he proposes.

Dr. Ryan

If the Minister's difficulty is that he does not want to give a majority, let us say, to the medical practitioners and the dispensing opticians, let the Minister nominate two or three, instead of one. I think it would be a much better idea than only leaving one to the dispensing opticians. However, if the Minister is not prepared to accept that, I must press my amendment. The only way I can make that clear is by voting against the Minister's amendment.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá 59; Níl, 29.

Tá.

• Barrett, Stephen D.
• Barry, Anthony.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James J.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Collins, Seán.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Deering, Mark.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Glynn, Brendan M.
• Hession, James M.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Leary, Johnny.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Morrissey, Dan.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Carroll, Maureen.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, James.

Níl.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Fanning, John.
• Gogan, Richard.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Kelly, Edward.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Moher, John W.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies D. J. O'Sullivan and Mrs. O'Carroll; Níl: Deputies Briscoe and Carter.

Amendment declared carried.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Mr. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 7, Section 14, to delete sub-section (1), lines 9, 10 and 11, and substitute:—

(1) (a) A casual vacancy occurring among the elected members of the board, the person occasioning the vacancy being a registered ophthalmic optician, shall be filled by cooption by the other elected members of the board of a registered ophthalmic optician.

(b) A casual vacancy occurring among the elected members of the board, the person occasioning the vacancy being a registered dispensing optician, shall be filled by co-option by the other elected members of the board of a registered dispensing optician.

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 7, Section 15, to add to the section the following new sub-section:—

(2) Every Order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made.

On Committee Stage, Deputy Dr. Ryan put down an amendment to provide that an Order removing a person from membership of the board should be laid on the table of the House and should contain the reason for the person's removal. It was explained that it might possibly be undesirable to include, in all cases, the reason for removal, but it was agreed to introduce an amendment providing that an Order removing a member of the board from office should be laid before the Oireachtas. This amendment gives effect to that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 10, before Section 27, to insert the following new section:—

Notwithstanding Sections 24 to 26 of this Act, the board may refuse to register in the register of ophthalmic opticians a person whose name stands removed from the register of dispensing opticians.

This amendment and amendment No. 7 are primarily drafting amendments, to rectify an anomaly whereby a person removed from one register could, under the Bill as drafted, apply for registration in the other register on foot of professional qualifications, or because he satisfies any of the other conditions precedent to registration. For example, an ophthalmic optician could be removed from the register of ophthalmic opticians for administering drugs. Under the Bill as it stands, he could apply to be registered in the register of dispensing opticians and the board would necessarily have to register him without regard to the fact that he had been removed from the ophthalmic opticians' register. This amendment will make it clear that the board need not act in this manner.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 12, Section 34, before sub-section (2), to insert the following new sub-section:—

(2) The board shall, in accordance with rules, register in the register of dispensing opticians a person who applies for such registration and who satisfies the condition that, on the 13th day of July, 1955, he was included in the panel of opticians maintained by the Minister for Social Welfare for the purpose of Section 25 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952 (No. 11 of 1952).

The purpose of this amendment is to permit the registration without examination of persons who were on the optical benefit panel maintained by the Department of Social Welfare. The 13th July, 1955, was the date of introduction of the Bill and only persons who were on the panel on that date may be registered under the sub-section. It was agreed on the Committee Stage to introduce an amendment of this nature and in view of this undertaking Deputies Palmer and Esmonde withdrew an amendment which they had put down for that stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 12, before Section 35, to insert the following new section:—

Notwithstanding Sections 32 to 34 of this Act, the board may refuse to register in the register of dispensing opticians a person whose name stands removed from the register of ophthalmic opticians.

This amendment is a corollary to amendment No. 5. It makes it clear that the board need not register on the register of dispensing opticians a person whose name has been removed from the register of ophthalmic opticians.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 13, before Section 39 but in Part IV, to insert the following new section:—

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part of this Act, a person who is a registered ophthalmic optician shall not be registered in the register of dispensing opticians.

(2) Where a person who is a registered dispensing optician becomes registered in the register of ophthalmic opticians, his name shall thereupon be removed from the register of dispensing opticians, and Sections 36, 37, and 38 of this Act shall not apply in relation to any such removal.

This amendment is designed to ensure that an optician can be registered in only one register at a particular time. It meets the point made by Deputy Dr. Esmonde and Deputy Dr. Ryan on the Committee Stage, which was withdrawn on the Minister's assurance that he would move an amendment on the Report Stage to give effect to the principle involved.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 15, Section 45 sub-section (1), to delete paragraph (c), lines 3 to 8, and substitute:—

(c) suggest by any written or oral statement or by any action that he has made or is capable of making a medical diagnosis of a disease of the eye or that, in relation to the treatment of the eyes, he has done or is capable of doing anything which is other than—

(i) in the case of a registered ophthalmic optician, the prescribing or provision of spectacles, or

(ii) in the case of a registered dispensing optician, the provision of spectacles.

On Committee Stage, Deputy Dr. Esmonde asked that the Minister should consider the possibility of making clear that ophthalmic opticians were not capable of or accustomed to carry out treatment of eye diseases. This amendment makes it clear that an optician can do nothing, except provide spectacles, if he is a registered dispensing optician, or prescribe and provide spectacles, if he is a registered ophthalmic optician. The purpose of the amendment is to deal particularly with the question of engaging or purporting to engage in medical diagnosis of diseases of the eye and I think it meets, in effect, the amendment tabled and withdrawn on Committee Stage by Deputy Dr. Esmonde.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.