I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
SECTION 2.
In subsection (1) (a), page 2, line 28, "managed" deleted and "supervised" substituted.
Pharmacy Bill, 1961—From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Why?
Some members of the Seanad thought that "supervised" was perhaps a more appropriate word than "managed" and I conceded the point.
"Managed" had an implication that "supervised" had not.
They assumed that supervision meant closer application to the operation in hand.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
In subsection (1) (b) (ii), page 2, line 41, "managed" deleted and "supervised" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
In subsection (1) (c), page 3, line 3, "managed" deleted and "supervised" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
SECTION 3.
In subsection (1), page 4, line 33, ",in connection with any business or employment," inserted before "take".
As the section stood, it would have been an offence to use the term "pharmaceutical chemist" in respect of something other than people keeping a shop or being actually engaged in the practice of pharmacy. A number of persons qualified as pharmaceutical chemists are not active as such but this will allow them the privilege of using the title outside the business of pharmacy. As the Bill stands, it might even happen that if the President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain came here, as he is not on the Irish register, if he used a visiting card containing his description or title as pharmaceutical chemist, he would be guilty of an offence.
If he were qualified and had retired from business, is that not the same type of case?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
In subsection (2), page 4, line 39, ", in connection with any business or employment," inserted before "take".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
In subsection (3), page 4, line 45, ", in connection with any business or employment," inserted before "take".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
SECTION 6.
In subsection (4), page 6, lines 4 to 9 deleted and the following substituted:
"be determined—
(a) in respect of membership of the Society by persons on whom the title of Fellow of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland has been conferred pursuant to section 7 of this Act and in respect of such membership by other persons, and
(b) in respect of the retention on registers maintained by the Society of persons referred to in subsection (3) of this section who keep open shop for the dispensing or compounding of medical prescriptions or the sale of poisons or are employed in a shop so kept and in respect of such retention of persons referred to in the said subsection (3) other than those aforesaid."
This, perhaps, is consequential upon amendment No. 8. Under amendment No. 8, the Society will have the right to confer the title of Fellow of the Society on persons who have rendered distinguished public service or something like that, a purely honorific fellowship. Arising out of that, they may wish to charge fees to people who qualify as Fellows by examination, election, or in some other way. This amendment will enable them to charge certain fees to persons who proceed from membership to fellowship.
In fact, this is to provide the equivalent of an honorary degree?
No. 8 is for that purpose.
Yes, and No. 7 means that they can distinguish between practising and honouring Fellows.
That is it.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
Before section 7 the following new section inserted:
"The Council may confer on any person the title of Fellow of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
Section 7 deleted.
This is consequential on amendment No. 8.
No. 8 gives them a freer hand in their own house than No. 7 would?
I suppose it does, yes.
The Minister came into the regulations in Section 7 and he does not come into the regulations at all in Section 8.
Yes, but that is not the point.
It may not be the point but it is very desirable that the Minister should be out of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
Ordered: That a message be sent to the Seanad accordingly.