PHARMACY (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976 (Hansard, 21 July 1976)

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, I beg to move that the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved. With the leave of the House, I should also like to speak to the Poisons (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, as these orders are closely connected. At the present time in Northern Ireland there are a series of Acts which deal with pharmacy and poisons, and the purpose of the draft orders before the House is to consolidate those Acts and, at the same time, separate the two subjects into a pharmacy code and poisons code. Consequently, both orders are very closely related with references in each to the other, and for these reasons it is desirable that I deal with both orders together. The corresponding legislation in Great Britain has already been consolidated in the Pharmacy Act 1954 and the Poisons Act 1972.
It is anticipated that Part III of the Medicines Act 1968—a United Kingdom Act—which refers to the retail sale of medicinal products will be brought into operation later this year. The provisions of that Part of the Act will supersede many of the provisions contained in the current pharmacy and poisons legislation. The orders before the House today have been drafted to take account of the amendments to be effected by the Act, and are designed to be brought into operation by a commencement order from a date subsequent to that on which Part III of the Act comes into force.
I will deal with the pharmacy order first. Part II of this order provides for the continuation of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland and of its 903 Council; Part III of the order continues existing provisions relating to the registration of pharmaceutical chemists, druggists and students, and Part IV maintains the existing procedures for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings within the profession.
While the order is almost entirely a consolidating measure, the opportunity has been taken to include a number of comparatively minor amendments aimed at clarifying and updating the legislation. For example, a period of practical training is required before anyone can be registered as a pharmaceutical chemist. Article 8(2) of the order requires the applicant for registration to show that he: has undergone such a course of practical training as may be prescribed This is in place of the present provision which calls for practical training of two years for pre-August 1967 students, and of one year for post-August 1967 students. The new provision will provide flexibility and will enable the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, subject to the approval of the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, to prescribe as they see fit both the duration and content of the practical training.
In addition, it is made clear in Schedules 1 and 2 that the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society may elect suitable members or associates of the Society as Fellows of the Society, and that the President and Vice-President are elected by the Council. This order is not in any way controversial, and the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services did not receive any substantial comments on the explanatory document which was issued to interested organisations earlier this year.
Turning now to the Poisons (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, in Part I, Article 2(3) introduces the new term "non-medicinal poison". This term is used to describe the poisons which will be retained on the poisons list when medicinal products have been removed and brought under the control of the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968. Part II of the order continues the provisions relating to the constitution and duties of the Poisons Board. The Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services will be advised by the Poisons Board on the substances which 904 should be treated as non-medicinal poisons, and on such other matters as may be referred to the Board for advice. The controls on the sale of non-medicinal poisons are set out in consolidated form in Part III of the order, which also continues the arrangements for the registration by district councils of persons who are permitted to sell certain non-medicinal poisons. Part IV of the order contains provisions concerning the sale of methylated spirits and ether.
Although the order is mainly a consolidating measure, it includes a few amendments of a comparatively minor nature; for example, the amount of some fines which have not been changed in the last 20 years are increased to more realistic levels. Schedule I provides that the Poisons Board will be constituted, as is common with other advisory bodies, by the head of the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services. In addition, Schedule III to the order repeals Part IV of the Revenue Act 1889 which prohibits the sale of methylated spirits between 10 p.m. on Saturday and 8 a.m. on the following Monday.
In conclusion, may I say that the two orders bring into easily accessible form a code of legislation which until now has been dispersed in a series of enactments dating over 50 years. The consolidation which they undertake will, I am sure, be welcomed by everybody concerned with the profession of pharmacy or with the sale of poisons. I commend the orders to the House. My Lords I beg to move.

§ Lord BELSTEAD
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will be aware that the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn special attention to both of these orders, because they make certain amendments to legislation which the orders are consolidating which the Joint Committee hold to be substantive. I make no complaints about the intention behind either of these orders, and I support both of them. But a criticism from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments raises once again 905 the question whether these orders are suitable for legislation by Parliamentary order, or whether they should perhaps be the subject of Bills. I should like to hear the noble Lord's comment on that observation, but may I say again that I certainly support the intention behind both of these orders.

The Duke of ATHOLL
My Lords, as a Member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, perhaps I may say a few words about why we felt it necessary to report these orders. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we do not look at all at the policy of the matter. All we are interested in is the form of an order, and whether it is an unexpected use of the power which the Act authorising an order gives to the Department concerned. In this case, we felt that the Explanatory Notes on both orders were somewhat muddling. For example, the Note on the poisons order states: This Order consolidates with minor amendments the enactments relating to non-medicinal poisons, methylated spirits and methylated ether. The Amendments are not really so minor. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, one of the amendments is about the fact that up till now in Northern Ireland one has not been permitted to sell methylated spirits between 10 p.m. on a Saturday and 8 a.m. on a Monday. I doubt whether this law was obeyed, although I would not know about that. But it seems to me that removing that offence is not a minor piece of legislation. I strongly suspect that that offence is committed by very many people every week-end, particularly those who are yachting chandlers, shipping chandlers and so on, who probably have people with boats in only on Sundays. I assure the noble Lord that most marinas are extra busy on Sundays, and I strongly suspect that chandlers do not refuse to sell methylated spirits to people who want them for stoves on their boats. Therefore, the Joint Committee took the view that that was not a minor amendment, and that had it, been in a normal consolidation Bill the Consolidation Committee might have had something to say about it.
Similarly, it did not seem to us to be a minor amendment that students of pharmacy no longer had to have one year's 906 practical experience. Up till now, one of the conditions for qualification was that they had had one year's practical experience, but under Article 8(2)(b) the Pharmaceutical Society can make regulations prescribing a course of practical training which must be undertaken, but there is no indication as to whether the course has to be of a year, six months, three months, one month or even five years before students can qualify. It seemed to the Joint Committee that, possibly, this was not a minor amendment. That is the reason why the report was made. It seems to happen frequently with Northern Ireland orders that the Explanatory Note is not what we regard as adequate, and in the light of the report of the Joint Committee f am wondering if the noble Lord can tell us whether he considers that the Explanatory Notes are adequate or whether they should spell out in more detail what the so-called minor alterations are.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Duke. The first point that I should like to make is that to remove a restriction which is not being observed is a minor change, but this is purely a question of opinion.

The Duke of ATHOLL
My Lords, would the noble Lord regard it as a minor change if the 50 mph speed limit, which I believe applies on all roads except dual carriageways, were removed? That limit is certainly not observed, but there is a great deal of feeling about it.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, there is no feeling about methylated spirits, which perhaps makes all the difference. However, this is a matter of opinion. I have not yet seen the report of the Joint Committee and therefore do not feel in a position to comment upon it. The Committee asked the Department for information about the amendments contained in the two orders and a memorandum—I have it here—giving this information was sent to the Committee by the Department. It consists of one page for one order; a second page deals with the other order. No further comments from the Committee have been received by the Department. Earlier this afternoon I gave the House an account of 907 one or two of these amendments and I maintain that they are of a comparatively minor nature.
This is a matter which we must leave for the next stage. We must wait to hear what the Joint Committee has to say in response to the Department's reply; then we shall see whether anything can be done. The argument has gone on for a good many years between the two Parties, in which there are expert and strongly held legal views. I do not think that the answer will necessarily be very simple, although I am quite sure that in this case the answer should not be one of legislation by Bill. This is a consolidating order which is eminently suited to the shorthand method that we use. This is not a totally satisfactory answer but it is not a totally satisfactory situation, and I must leave it there.

§ Lord BELSTEAD
My Lords, before the order goes through, may I thank my noble friend for what he has said, although he spoke as a member of the Joint Committee and not in a Party political way. It was the training provision to which he drew attention that I had particularly in mind in the brief remarks that I made. If the noble Lord does not mind my saying so, the situation is not very satisfactory. I will not press him any further, but perhaps this matter could be looked at again with the greatest closeness by the Northern Ireland Office. The noble Lord knows that the suitability of legislation passing through the House either by order or by Bill is a matter which I have raised many times. If, as I say, the Government could look at the question, I should be very happy to leave the matter there.

The Duke of ATHOLL
My Lords, I am very sorry if the noble Lord has not seen the Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments but it has been in the Printed Paper Office, certainly since lunchtime. The Committee met only yesterday, so the Report could not have been in the Printed Paper Office before today.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, I will, of course, take up this matter. It is rather a difference of opinion between legal experts than a matter of substance; but this is only an 908 opinion and I am more inclined to back my own legal expert than somebody else's. But again this is a matter of fancy, one might almost say. Nevertheless, I will see that the matter is taken up.