Seanad debates
Tuesday, 25 February 2003
Opticians (Amendment) Bill 2002: Committee and Remaining Stages.
2:30 pm
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are cognate with amendment No. 1 and they will be discussed together by agreement.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, paragraph (b), lines 36 and 37, to delete "has not been declared bankrupt" and substitute "is not an undischarged bankrupt".
I am advised that the reference to bankruptcy is to those in a condition of undischarged bankruptcy. As the Bill is written, however, it appears that if a person becomes bankrupt once, he or she can never be an optometrist again. Section 5 states that a person must be of "good character and repute and has not been declared bankrupt". This amendment would change that to "an undischarged bankrupt", thus clarifying the matter. That is the usual position. The disqualification from becoming the director of a company is rarely for life. In an enterprise culture, we should not impose lifetime bans.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Bill, as drafted, amends sections 24, 25, 33 and 34 of the Principal Act to bring their provisions clearly into line with the European Union directives on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. These directives were transposed into Irish law by Statutory Instrument No. 1 of 1991 and Statutory Instrument No. 135 of 1996. Sections 6 and 9 of the Bill provide for the registration of optometrists and dispensing opticians who have trained in other member states of the European Union and who are authorised, by virtue of the relevant EU directive, to take up and pursue those professions. Sections 5 and 8 provide for the registration of optometrists and dispensing opticians who have trained in this State and sections 7 and 10 provide for the registration of those who have trained outside the European Union.
The statutory instruments transposing the EU directives concerned use the terminology "has not been declared bankrupt". Accordingly, it has been used in the Bill, as drafted. Having taken the advice of the office of the parliamentary counsel in the matter, I am not in a position to accept the Senator's proposed amendments to sections 5, 7, 8 and 10 which, if accepted, would have the effect of creating a different regime for, on the one hand, optometrists and dispensing opticians whose qualifications have been obtained in this State and outside the European Union and, on the other, those qualified in other member states. My understanding is that the phrase used in the Bill is the one normally used. What the Senator is suggesting might be more appropriate for debate on another occasion in the context of a system wide change.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not intend to delay the House unnecessarily on this. What advice has the Minister received on the matter? My understanding, on the basis of explanations I have received, is that once a person is declared bankrupt, he or she can never again practice as an optometrist. Is it the Minister's understanding that the prohibition applies only while a person is in the state of bankruptcy? Does it result in a lifetime ban if one is declared bankrupt? That appears to be an easy question.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The same provision applies to Members of the Oireachtas. It appears to be an age-old provision. We are amending the Act to keep in line with EU Council directives on mutual recognition of professions across member states. My understanding of the term "has not been declared bankrupt" is that the person concerned is not bankrupt. I will revert to the Senator with further advice on the matter after I have obtained further clarification from the parliamentary counsel.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I appreciate the complications involved in that the issue does not relate solely to this Bill. However, before it is enacted into law, we should clarify precisely what the phrase means. While I know that any Senator who might be declared bankrupt would immediately cease to be a Member of the Oireachtas, I am not sure that one would be prohibited from running again if the provision was invoked. I have never had to deal with the issue, although a person known to some of us came close to it on one occasion. There is a separate issue involved in this regard. Perhaps it is public policy that a person who is declared bankrupt once is to be permanently excluded thereafter from the relevant entitlements. However, I do not claim to be very knowledgeable about bankruptcy but perhaps the Minister does.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not, thank God.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Perhaps the Government does, to coin a point.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Historically, the phrase has been used in the context of criminal bankruptcy. However, we added Deputies and Senators to the list, in terms of eligibility for membership of outside bodies. In that regard, many Acts contain a standard provision referring to criminal bankruptcy and membership of the Oireachtas almost in the same sentence. The Senator may have a point in the generality of the issue. It is a legitimate question as to whether, if a person has a difficulty at a certain period of his or her life, this should result in being permanently debarred. I will seek legal clarification on the phraseology used in advance of the matter being debated in the other House. The difficulty is that the terminology is used in the EU directive which we are transposing into Irish law. The Senator has, however, raised an interesting point.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My counterpart in the other House might not be so agreeable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have just one question on the section. Do I understand correctly that the terms "conviction for an offence" and "serious misconduct" relate only to the carrying out of professional duties? Could a person be convicted of a totally separate serious offence without being automatically disbarred? For instance, let us suppose an optometrist had a conviction for child sexual abuse. Would that automatically disbar him or her from being registered as an optometrist?
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Under the broader Act, I believe the opticians' board would potentially have a role in that area. To which section is the Senator referring?
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Section 5 refers to a person who "is not prohibited or suspended from practising in the profession—
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
—by reason of . a conviction for an offence, or . serious misconduct, in connection with the carrying out of professional duties." Does the term "conviction for an offence" refer to that of "in connection with the carrying out of professional duties" or is it—
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is in connection with the carrying out of professional duties.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What will prevent somebody who had committed a very serious offence from practising? I do not want to hold up Committee Stage.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The section also refers to a person who "is of good character and repute and has not been declared bankrupt". That would obviously cover it.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I suppose so.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 7 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, paragraph (a), line 12, after "action" to insert ", including the prescription or administration of any drug for the purpose of paralysing the accommodation of the eye,".
When we were discussing whether or not we should take all Stages of the Bill today, the Leader stated that she did not think any of the amendments were serious or ponderous. In my opinion, however, the amendment in my name is extremely serious because it relates to one of the most important parts of the Bill. While I warmly welcome the rest of the Bill, I am anxious about this area.
My anxiety was somewhat increased by the Minister's reply on Second Stage. With regard to what I said on the subject of allowing optometrists to use drugs, I do not believe he fully understood my concerns. I do not believe that the only people who should be allowed use drugs are members of the medical profession. I have spoken in this House, as the Cathaoirleach may remember, about the need to extend the use of drugs to paramedics in a pre-hospital emergency situation. I got quite a favourable response from the Minister about this and I hope that changes in this area will be forthcoming in the near future. I am not taking a trade union approach to this issue, about which I am quite concerned.
On Second Stage the Minister stated that "This Bill does not extend the use of drugs and it does not change the parent legislation." That is not really true. It is removing the section which states that an optician, as so described within the existing Act, cannot prescribe or administer drugs. The Minister then stated that "Amendments to the Medicinal Regulations 1996 will facilitate the utilisation of the three drugs." However, there is nothing within the Bill which describes these three drugs. They are not there. As far as I can see, a future Minister could extend the number of drugs which it is possible to administer.
I know there was considerable pressure on the Department to allow the use of atropine, but this was not allowed. We are not specifying in the legislation the drugs which may be used and I pointed out on Second Stage that I was one of those who had prescribed Chloramphenicol eye ointment, which subsequently was proved to cause agranular cytosis. It was decades before we understood that the local application of a powerful antibiotic such as that to which I refer – which was so useful in the treatment of eye infections – could actually cause depression of the bone marrow and the development of agranular cytosis. Even if this Minister does not, some other Minister in the future could extend the use of the drugs.
The Minister stated in his reply on Second Stage that three drugs were suggested. He started the paragraph following the one I have just quoted by saying drugs are used in diagnosis. That is quite true, but section 12(a) of this Bill states that "a registered optician who is not a registered medical practitioner shall not suggest by any written or oral statement or by any action that the registered optician has made or is capable of making a medical diagnosis of a disease of the eye .". If this is the case, why, according to the Minister's own words, are we introducing drugs used to facilitate a diagnosis of eye disease?
I am particularly concerned about systemic disease because although optometrists should be able to give a full ophthalmological examination of the eye, they cannot be expected to deduce the presence of systemic disease from symptoms within the eye. This is very important because systemic disease is frequently picked up because of some peripheral manifestation. Diabetes, the most common cause of blindness in people of working age, is the most important example of this.
The Minister when replying said, "Drugs are used in diagnosis to ensure that the best possible examination can be carried out to gain information that might not otherwise be readily obtained." As I said earlier, people will think they have had a full medical examination of the fundus of the eye. If the optometrist dilates the pupil the patient will think that ocular disease has been ruled out because the only reason the pupil is dilated is to do a fundal examination. Optometrists have been managing for years to give extraordinarily good advice regarding spectacles without the use of this drug. The drug to be used in this case is the one I am least concerned about, namely tropicamide. This is used to facilitate examination of the fundus of the eye by paralysing the sphincter and dilator muscles of the iris. It does have a slight effect on the ciliary muscle, but it does not last for long. It is the one I have the least trouble with, but there are side-effects, systemic as well as local, which are listed in Duane's Ophthalmology. They are not common, but they exist.
Another drug about which I am concerned is oxybuprocaine hydrochloride. I am referring to the Minister's Second Stage speech so I assume these are the three drugs he intends to be used. This is a topical anaesthetic that produces a surface anaesthesia lasting 20 to 30 minutes. That is fine, but at present I believe some opticians are using this drug to anaesthetise people's eyes while they test them for contact lenses. I was tested for contact lenses, and failed, but I do not think a local anaesthetic was used. One can only presume that the reason there is enthusiasm for allowing a local anaesthetic is that the opticians would like to be able to use an applanation tonometer to measure pressure within the eye rather than the puff tonometer used at the moment. The difference between the two is that the former touches the surface of the eye – the cornea – and the latter does not. The former is more accurate, but the other is also quite accurate. Opticians have been measuring tension within the eye for many years. Perhaps some glaucomas have been missed – I do not know – and this is why they want the applanation tonometer, but it is a big change.
Touching the cornea of the eye is important. The Minister said at the beginning of the Second Stage debate that, at present, opticians are not really allowed even to take a speck of dust out of the eye. Any medical practitioner is also extraordinarily sensitive about going near the eye because one can get into dire trouble so rapidly. I can only believe that this is the reason for the request to have this drug encompassed within the new regulations. Suppose there is a corneal tear, which can happen when a tonometer is being used. What is the legal liability of the optician, the to-be optometrist? After obtaining a copy of the Minister's regulations – a master stroke, as they were produced last Friday and I was obliged to explain them at a meeting of the IHCA on Sunday – I looked through the National Treasury Management Agency (Delegation of Functions) Order 2003, which is about extending enterprise liability to the National Treasury Agency. In it, the definition of "clinical claim" is given as "a claim connected with the provision of, or failure to provide, a professional medical service". It goes on to describe "professional medical services" as:
I had presumed that opticians and optometrists would be allowed to use these drugs in their own private facilities and that they were not under the direction of anyone, although a general practitioner or schools officer may have referred the patient. Will the GP or schools officer then be liable? Is this to be put into the regulations? It is not mentioned here.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, because they do not work in hospitals. They are private contractors.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They are private contractors. The list the Senator read out consists of people who work in hospitals.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is the worry. Will the person who refers a person to a private contractor be liable? The legal liability cover of these people, as the Minister knows, is not very high. They are to take on a whole new area in which there could be a clinical claim.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No, they are not. The Act is very specific.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would like to see that. Before Report Stage, would it be possible to find out the provisions of legal coverage? I have failed to find this out. This is important because we are now allowing for drugs where, for example, there may be a corneal tear. It is very easy to tear the cornea using a tonometer. It is always a problem and is one of the things that the defence unions will admit they come across from time to time.
The next drug is cyclopentolate hydrochloride, which is a cycloplegic that acts on the muscle of the eye – importantly, the ciliary muscle. I have diagrams of cross-sections of the eye, for anyone who might like a copy, taken from Dr. Patrick Trevor-Roper's lecture notes on ophthalmology. It can be seen that the ciliary muscle is in the ciliary body and suspends the lens within the vitreous humour. This drug is totally different from tropicamide, which acts on the sphincter and dilator muscles of the iris, although they look similar. It is an important drug which is close in action and chemical composition to atropine and has similar side-effects. One of the problems is that these side-effects are frequently systemic.
Duane's Ophthalmology describes the side-effects of cyclopentolate as "Systemic toxicity induced by the ocular administration of cyclopentolate hydrochloride is similar to that produced by atropine, except that visual and tactile hallucinations are a more constant and striking feature of cyclopentolate toxicity." It is odd to propose to omit atropine from the provisions of the Bill, but to include another drug which causes side-effects of visual and tactile hallucinations. Duane's description also states:
This is not surprising since cyclopentolate is structurally similar to atropine but contains a dimethylated side group also found in some tranquillisers and hallucinogenic drugs. CNS toxicity induced by cyclopentolate is especially prominent in children and the elderly. This seems to indicate that CNS immaturity or ageing is necessary for its potent psychotomimetic action to become manifest. As with atropine, there is increased incidence of systemic toxic reactions in children with brain damage. The peripheral signs and symptoms of cylopentolate toxicity are variable and frequently absent. Gastrointestinal toxicity consisting of ileus or gastroenteritis which has been observed with cyclopentolate concentrations of 0.5% or greater in pre-term infants due reduced gastric acid secretion and volume.
It is difficult to understand why the Minister has decided not to allow the use of atropine and allow the use of this drug, even though a reputable medical text book says it has an even greater chance of causing serious systemic side-effects which are most likely to occur in children. It is not possible to refract a child's eye without the use of either atropine or cyclopentolate because one must relax the ciliary muscle to allow for the refraction.
Children from well-baby clinics and school examination clinics are currently referred to a community ophthalmic practitioner. These are physicians trained in ophthalmology who, although not in a position to perform surgical treatment, can carry out a total medical examination of the eye, identify systemic disease and are experienced in how to deal with any side-effects that result from the administration of drugs. This is far more than simply an eye examination and the prescription of spectacles which, in any event, may not be the problem.
There is a shortage of community ophthalmic practitioners and perhaps we should employ more. I am anxious that shortcuts may be taken and that children will be referred to optometrists. Optometrists are splendid in their own way, but children will not have as good an eye examination as they would if they had been referred to a community ophthalmic practitioner. It could easily happen that children will be referred to optometrists.
I have grave concerns about the fact that these three potent drugs, particularly cyclopentolate – which appears to have more sustained side-effects than atropine – are being used. I did not mention the local side-effects of these drugs, one of which is acute glaucoma from raised intra-ocular pressure. It is not as though the people carrying out these examinations are badly trained;, it is that they are not trained in these specific areas.
The Minister said that use of these drugs is allowed in England. There is a completely different system in that country for training optometrists, who have an extra intern year in hospital after training and a considerable amount of their training takes place in hospital. That does not happen here, although I am sure they are doing their job well. However, we are taking a dangerous shortcut in permitting the use of cyclopentolate because the only reason for it to be used is for the refraction of children's eyes in order that they can be prescribed glasses, which is not the case at present. I find it odd that the use of a drug which has more serious side-effects than atropine – as this reputable text book from which I quoted states – will be allowed, while the use of atropine will not.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I suspect there is no one in the House, including the Minister, who can argue with Senator Henry on the technicalities of this matter. The experience in dealing with any substance which is potentially harmful or toxic is that the people who are least well trained are those who are the most casual. It is a well-documented fact that there are fewer explosions during the off-loading of crude oil at a refinery because the staff there are far better trained and have a greater respect for it. The disaster at Bantry was unsurprising because of the lack of skill available there. All my professional training suggests that the people to whom one must give the most training in terms of being careful with potentially hazardous substances are those who are least qualified and most likely to take shortcuts, whereas the best trained will meticulously observe the letter of good practice because they know better. It is interesting to watch the reactions of people to an exposure to H2S. People who are professionally qualified are wary because they know how toxic it is, while those who are not will regard it as funny because it smells of rotten eggs.
The point Senator Henry made – she was not scaremongering – is that the administration of a potentially toxic drug needs to be under the control of people who have the training and skill to treat the substance with the appropriate degree of respect and care. I am always concerned where people are using one, two or three substances because familiarity with their use can have the opposite effect to that intended. They will tend to take them for granted because they are so familiar with them. One needs the extra training because there are few materials which are not potentially hazardous. The first rule I teach my students is that, if something is neither air nor water, they should neither breathe nor touch it. The first principle is to avoid exposure to any substance. The only good practice is to treat everything as if it is potentially hazardous.
Senator Henry made a convincing case that at least one of the three substances to which the Bill refers is harmful and we need to be careful with it. This issue deserves a lot more thought.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
When I was here last, I made the point that the Bill was not the legislative mechanism through which the three named drugs would be allowed; they would be allowed through amendments to medicinal regulations. The Bill removes the absolute prohibition on the utilisation of some drugs by optometrists included in the parent Act.
From the outset we recognised that unanimity on the issue of the use of drugs by optometrists would be difficult to achieve. There has been much consultation and discussion on the issue, both with the Opticians Board and the College of Ophthalmologists. While considerable ground was given during the consultations, this has not been acknowledged – even by the groups involved. There are those who believe we should have a restrictive approach and those who want to see an even more liberal approach. While we have attempted to achieve a balance, it has not been easy given the strong positions taken by both sides.
Most Senators welcomed the amendments to section 48 of the principal Act during Second Stage. This section concerns the provision of treatment and the prescribing and administration of drugs. The Bill achieves a satisfactory balance in this area in allowing optometrists carry out their professional function while stopping short of facilitating medical treatment by them of an injury or disease of the eye. The Senator made the point that the impression may be given but the Act is very specific in forbidding and prohibiting optometrists from attempting to make a medical diagnosis. It places an obligation on them to refer any problems to an ophthalmologist for the disease to be treated. This will be enforced by Government amendment No. 6 arising from the consultations in which I engaged before Second Stage with the college to make sure, ar eagla na heagla, there would not be any doubt about the matter. There cannot be any suggestion that the Bill facilitates the treatment of medical conditions pertaining to the eye by optometrists.
"(1) A registered optician who is not a registered medical practitioner shall not suggest by any written or oral statement or by any action that the registered optician 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, the registered optician has done or is capable of doing anything other than–
"(4) Where in the course of an eye examination or treatment of the eye, a registered optician referred to in subsection (1) suspects the presence of a disease or condition of the eye, the registered optician shall inform the patient of this and recommend that the patient consult with a registered medical practitioner.".
Cyclopentolate is the cycloplegic most frequently used in optometric practice and, in all but those situations where complete cycloplegia is required, it is probably the nearest approach to the ideal . Cyclopentolate does not have the toxic potential of atropine, particularly as it is not normally used at home. There have, however, been reports of CNS disturbances . following the instillation of cyclopentolate drops. This temporary disturbance, which recovers in a few hours with no apparent lasting effects, has usually been associated with the use of higher concentrations (2%) than normally employed.
Allergic responses to cyclopentolate are even less common than to atropine and cyclopentolate may be used in patients who are allergic to atropine . The risk of a rise in intraocular pressure following the use of cyclopentolate is lower than with atropine because of the less drastic effects and the shorter duration of action. It is also easier to reverse the effects of cyclopentolate if this is thought to be desirable.
The drugs in question are widely used in Britain where the authorities are going further than we are and recommending the use of drugs for therapeutic purposes. The Irish College of Ophthalmologists takes a different view to the British College of Ophthalmologists. If Senators excuse the pun, they do not see eye to eye on the utilisation of these drugs. While I accept Senator Henry's concerns, we have reached a reasonable balance in trying to bring the legislation in tune with current optometry norms.
I have been told anecdotally that drops are used and people ask me what the fuss is about. We are bringing the legislation up to date. There is no provision being made for optometrists to engage in medical diagnosis. After the Bill is passed, there may be a case for the Opticians Board to present to the public what is and is not allowed in order that there are no illusions or no false impressions are given. People may think they are getting a full medical examination from an optician but the Bill does not go anywhere near suggesting this. It is erroneous to suggest that it does. Its presentation subsequent to its enactment regarding what optometrists are entitled to do should be done clearly and publicly. The Department may take a role in this.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am long enough in politics to know how long it can take for supposedly helpful legislation to be put into practice. We could spend the afternoon quoting various sources.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not an expert on drugs.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Neither am I. That is the reason I looked up—
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We sought advice on these three drugs from our chief pharmacists following my meeting with the College of Ophthalmologists and before Second Stage.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
By order of the House, discussion on the Bill was to conclude at 4 p.m. but in an effort to be helpful we could extend the time by five to ten minutes but no more than that.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to make another point. The Minister will be familiar with the MIMS handbook on drugs which is produced and distributed to practitioners twice a year. In the handbook there is nothing under the heading of "adverse reactions" for atropine. However, when one looks at cyclopentolate, the adverse reactions include systemic anticholinergic effects. This is serious and stated by the most common handbook on drugs. While I am sure the Minister's advisers are splendid, I do not wish to include this in legislation.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That drug is not included in the legislation.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know. However, the Minister said on Second Stage—
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is scarcely a drug on the market that does not have a range of contraindications or side-effects listed on each packet. That is the other side of the coin. Every drug on the market comes with a list of warnings about side effects. We need to be balanced in our approach. We have taken advice on this and limited the number of drugs to three. Originally, it was suggested that six or seven be included.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
While it is not in the Bill, it is clearly the intention to include it as one of the drugs.
Frank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am conscious of the time constraints. The original Opticians Act of 1956 was introduced by the late Mr. Tom O'Higgins on behalf of the coalition Government. Prior work on the legislation was done by Dr. Ryan of the previous Government. At a time such as this we should accord recognition to that work. It was not necessary to revisit the legislation for more than 48 years.
I thank the Minister for tabling amendment No. 6—
Frank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Excuse me. I support amendment No. 5.
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As we have not discussed claims or anything else, it is being pressed.
Amendment put.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As it is now 4.18 p.m., I call the Leader of the House.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I propose that we conclude the debate by 4.30 p.m., if we have not already done so, before moving on to deal with the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 9, paragraph (b), lines 23 and 24, to delete "or treatment of the eye".
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As I stated in my Second Stage address to the House, I recently met representatives of the College of Ophthalmologists when the president of the college outlined the difficulties which many ophthalmologists have with the use of the word "treatment" in section 12(b) which inserts a new subsection (4). I gave an undertaking that my Department would re-examine this area. Having considered the subsection in question and consulted the office of the chief parliamentary counsel, I now propose to delete the words "or treatment of the eye" from section 12(b). I hope the proposed amendment will find favour with the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to pose a question that, I suspect, will also be close to Senator Quinn's heart. The Minister states the Bill is the product of 30 years of effort. Surely some of its provisions could be brought into force within a guaranteed timeframe of anywhere from three months to a year. I do not hold with the practice of not laying down time limits for fear something might happen. The Houses of the Oireachtas will have debated the legislation at length. In that context, surely the sections dealing with reading glasses could be subject to a more rigid timescale. This open-ended provision is bad practice.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This Bill, when enacted, will be subject to a simultaneous exercise with the medicinal regulations Act, which is the reason for the absence of a timeframe. We do not generally have timeframes.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes and no.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, subsection (2), line 36, to delete "1956 to 2002" and substitute "1956 and 2003".
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator's amendment states 2003.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is a matter for the parliamentary counsel when the Bill is ultimately passed. Our point is that stating "1956 to 2002" suggests there are more than two Acts. There are only two.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister for having listened to me so courteously. It is an area about which I have great concerns. Perhaps between now and the Bill's passage through the Dáil the Minister will consider some of the points I raised.
Camillus Glynn (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister and Senators on all sides. We must compliment the Minister on using the legislation to address serious anomalies in this area.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It would be remiss of me not to say that this is long overdue legislation and I compliment the Minister on grinding it out of the Parliamentary Counsel. I tried out some of these reading glasses and they did not make much difference to my eyesight.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They did not affect the Senator's tongue.
Frank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister and all Senators involved in the debate. The previous Act was successful for 48 years and I hope this amending legislation is as successful for a similar period.
Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senators for their contributions. We had a very good Second Stage debate. The importance of debate is that we tease out every aspect of a Bill and the area with which it deals. We have done well in this regard and, as the Bill moves to the other House, I will reflect on the debate which took place in the Seanad. We should not forget that there was broad agreement on key points, such as the use of the title "optometrist" in place of "ophthalmic optician", the obtaining of registration requirements, the deregulation of the sale of ready readers and the updating of the level of fines. I thank Senators for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.