First Reading On motion made and seconded, the following Bills were read a first time – (a) The Certificate of Character Bill (No. II of 2026) (b) The Anti-Money Laundering, Combatting the Financing of Terrorism and Countering Proliferation Financing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. III of 2026) Second Reading THE OPTICAL COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. I of 2026) (4.35 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Optical Council (Amendment) Bill (No. I of 2026) be read a second time. This amendment has become not only urgent, but absolutely necessary. This Bill is not just about amending an existing piece of legislation; it is about correcting a legislative blunder committed by the previous government. A blunder that has compromised the legal integrity of the Optical Council itself, damaged the reputation of our health system, and most disturbingly, inflicted real human harm. A law that was illegal from the very beginning. Madam Speaker, let us call a spade a spade! The Optical Council Act 2021, as enacted by the previous administration, is legally flawed. It created a council structure that was unlawful from the very beginning. The current Act makes provision, amongst others, for three opticians from the public sector to form part of the Optical Council to regulate the professional conduct of opticians and promote their advancement. Yet, surprisingly, unbeknown to the law makers that there are not full-time opticians employed in the public sector. There never were! In fact, there were four opticians who were working on a sessional basis in our hospitals. My Ministry has consulted the Attorney General’s office and had been advised that these four opticians are not deemed to be public officers. This means that the law provided for the composition of a council that could not legally exist. In other words, the very body tasked with regulating professional standard was itself not properly constituted. This is not a technical error. This institutional illegality resulting from legislative incompetence and left uncorrected for too long. Madam Speaker, as a result of this flawed legal framework, we have witnessed the emergence of what can only be described as an unwarranted grip on the regulation of the profession of opticians where certain opticians of the private sector in Mauritius. In fact, a small group of individuals, emboldened by vague and unchecked powers and ignorance of the authority, have taken control of the council and used it, not to uphold standards and promote advancement of the profession, but to protect their own selfish interest, debar competitors and stifle dissent. The Optical Council even abusively exceeded its legal authority by attempting to influence decision making with regard to optical retail establishments. An area over which it has no mandate. It went as far as to submit list to another Ministry recommending which optical businesses should be blacklisted from subsidy schemes for spectacles for elderly persons. This led to the arbitrary exclusion of lawfully operating optical shops – businesses that employ several Mauritians and serve thousands of citizens. Is this regulation? No, Madam Speaker, this is abuse of power! This is how regulatory capture operates, and this House will not tolerate such unacceptable conduct. Laws do not exist in a vacuum. They have consequences often on the most vulnerable citizens. Let me share one of the most disturbing outcomes of this flawed legislation, a heritage of the previous regime. Because of the opaque and unjust practises permitted under the current Act, particularly the lack of transparency and integrity in the registration process, several foreign professionals who were invited to work in Mauritius found themselves caught in an irreversible trap, some were denied registration after passing through flawed and discretionary examinations while others faced endless administrative hurdles. Worse still, I am told that some of their spouses and children were deported because of primary applicants’ registration was blocked or delayed, not on merit, but due to institutional manipulation and conflict of interests. Is how we treat professionals who come to serve our people? This is not just regulatory failure. This is gross injustice! And it has happened under the very legislation we now propose to amend. This Bill seeks to do what the previous administration failed to do: bring legality, professionalism, fairness and inclusiveness to the regulation of opticians and orthoptist in Mauritius. We are –  Rectifying the illegal composition of the council by removing the requirements for the representation of public sector opticians;  Formally recognising orthoptists, essential vision care professionals and allowing for their registration and representation;  Clarifying the definition of opticians and introducing a definition for optometrist;  Ending the pre-registration examination system that is currently riddled with conflict of interests and low transparency, and aligning registration with best practices used by other professional councils such as the Allied Health Professionals Council and Nursing Council. It is also worthy to note that there are no examinations for registration of opticians in France or in India. Let me remind the House that prior to 2021, opticians were regulated by the Optician Registration Board and there were no examinations, there were no problems and certainly no abuse;  Defining and regulating eye health professionals more clearly by harmonising, updating and broadening the categories of professionals eligible for registration under the council, and finally  We are drawing a clear legal line: the Optical Council will regulate professionals. They have nothing to do with commercial enterprises. Optical retail outlets will continue to be regulated under other appropriate enactments. In doing so, we will not only restore legality. We are also creating a more inclusive and more regulatory environment that better reflects the multidisciplinary nature of vision care today. Madam Speaker, these amendments have not been drafted in a vacuum. They followed three working sessions with the Optical Council in May and November 2025 and they also take onboard the realities faced by professionals in the field of vision care, patients and the Ministry alike. Madam Speaker, the Optical Council (Amendment) Bill 2026 is more than a set of technical corrections. It is a statement of principle. It is the repudiation of the incompetence of the past and a restoration of legality, decency and order in the regulation of eye care services in Mauritius. It is a rejection of unilateral control and a promise to both our professionals and our people that integrity and justice will prevail in the governance of health. It is also a timely step forward in ensuring that the legislation is harmonised with best practices, updated to reflect current needs and inclusive of all qualified professionals in this essential field. Madam Speaker, let me now deal briefly into the principal provisions of the Bill and their justifications. Clause 3 provides for the inclusion or definition for orthoptists, foreign orthoptists, visiting orthoptists and optometrists, that is, someone who, inter alia, evaluates visual acuity and prescribe, fits and supplies optical appliances as well as clarify the definition on some of the terms. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 provide for inclusion of orthoptists, foreign orthoptists, visiting opticians and visiting orthoptists to be covered under the Act. Clause 7 and 8 provide for the new composition for the council by removing representations of public sector opticians, increasing the number of opticians, removing representation from the Optical Association of Mauritius as the latter is not representative of all opticians in the country, including a representative from the Ministry of Finance and the Consultant-in-Charge, Subramania Bharati Eye Hospital, and the replacement in case of vacancy. Clause 9 provides for the quorum and frequency of meetings of the council. Clause 10 provides for an orthoptist to be eligible to be appointed as registrar in addition to an optician. Clause 11 provides for amendment to Part IV of the Act pertaining to the registration of optician to include orthoptist, foreign orthoptist and visiting opticians or visiting orthoptist and it will repeal the requirement for examinations to be conducted by the council. Clause 12, 13, 14 and 15 provide for inclusion of orthoptist and foreign orthoptist, visiting opticians and visiting orthoptist in the annual list of professionals. Clause 16, 17 and 18 will enable the Optical Council to exercise discipline over the profession of orthoptist. Clause 19, 20, 21, 22 provide for the new membership of the disciplinary tribunal and the manner for the conduct of disciplinary measures. Clause 23 provides for deregistration of orthoptists and foreign orthoptists. Clause 24 provides for appeal to be made by aggrieved orthoptists and foreign orthoptists against the decision of the Optical Council. Clause 25 provides for the offences to be levelled against orthoptists and foreign orthoptists. Clause 26 provides for amended list of pharmaceutical products authorised to be used by optometrists. Clause 27 provides new conditions for the conduct of election of members of Optical Council. Clause 28 provides for qualifications of the different categories of professionals to be registered with the Council and finally Clause 29 provides that these amendments shall come in operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. Madam Speaker. I now commend this Bill to the House not only for the sake of compliance but for the sake of public interest and professional dignity. Thank you. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. At 4.46 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.27 p.m., with Madam Speaker on the Chair.

Please be seated. Hon. Leader of the Opposition! The Leader of the Opposition (Mr G. Lesjongard): Merci, Madame la présidente. Madame la présidente, j’ai écouté avec beaucoup d’attention l’intervention de l’honorable ministre de la Santé sur le projet de loi, c’est-à-dire le Optical Council (Amendment) Bill et je suis assez surpris de par ses propos. Il a énoncé de graves accusations, premièrement, contre l’ancien gouvernement qui avait amené la loi au Parlement en 2021, si je ne me trompe pas, et aussi contre le Conseil. Madame la présidente, pour le peu de temps que j’ai été au Parlement, j’ai aussi eu l’occasion d’être ministre pendant quelques années. Quand le ministre fait mention de l’illégalité de cette loi qui est en existence pour le moment, je me pose la question, Madame la présidente, je pense que la plupart de ceux qui ont servi ce pays comme ministre le savent, c’est le bureau de l’Attorney General et les officiers de l’Attorney General’s Office qui travaillent sur les projets de loi et c’est sur les recommandations de ces officiers qu’éventuellement au niveau du Conseil des ministres, on approuve les projets de loi. Alors, je ne comprends pas trop l’argument énoncé par le ministre. En ce qui concerne la composition du conseil, il a fait référence aux personnes, c’est-à-dire les officiers qui étaient sur ce conseil et qui étaient des officiers du ministère. Il a fait comprendre que c’était des officiers qui n’étaient pas employés à plein temps mais des officiers qui été en un sessional, si je ne me trompe pas, voilà ce qu’il avait dit. Mais, Madame présidente, je me suis renseigné et je comprends que there is no post as such in the Ministry, to be able to recruit an optician whereas, Madam Speaker, they have been there, I understand, those persons, for the past 25 years which means that they may not be Public Officers but they have been providing service to the Ministry for the past 25 years, Madam Speaker. Now, having said that, Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. Minister, today, had two possibilities. One, it is confirmed what he has said in this House. The first one was to completely scrap the existing legislation and come up with a new legislation or if as he said, it was illegal – il y a eu des maldonnes au niveau du conseil, – he should have made a statement to the police from the very day he was made aware of the situation and not come today, like I said, to this House with an amendment to the Bill and make that gratuitous allegations, Madam Speaker. Having said that, Madam Speaker, let me say a few things. There are things that I welcome in this piece of legislation, for example, to formally bring orthoptist under the regulatory umbrella of the Optical Council because for too long, Madam Speaker, there has been ambiguity regarding their status and this Bill, Madam Speaker seeks to correct that. However, Madam Speaker, while the intent of this Bill may be noble, the mechanisms proposed raise serious questions regarding patient’s safety, professional autonomy and the governance of the Council itself. Today, Madam Speaker, what we see in this piece of legislation was what was criticised when that Act was brought into this House in 2021 et permettez-moi, Madame la présidente, pour étayer ce que je suis en train de dire, de me référer à l’intervention de l’honorable Richard Duval à l’époque, et je cite – « Je vois que le ministre va accentuer la présence des fonctionnaires sur ce conseil ». Et, j’espère, il n’est pas là aujourd’hui, que l’honorable Richard Duval n’y verra pas une entrave à l’indépendance de cette institution quand il avait affirmé à l’époque, je cite – « Et si on y ajoute à cette liste, (…) le représentant du bureau du PMO et celui de l’Attorney General’s Office, le ministre aura sous son control sept membres de ce conseil, ce qui représente presque la moitié de l’Optical Council » De ce fait, la question de l’indépendance de tel conseil se pose et j’y reviendrai un peu plus tard, Madame la présidente, à cet argument qui avait été énoncé à l’époque. Madam Speaker, let me address certain specific provisions of this Bill and I hope, I will have the full attention of the hon. Minister for what I am going to say. Madam Speaker, as Leader of the Opposition, my duty is to scrutinise these provisions to ensure that the people of this country are not short-changed in the name of administrative conditions and in doing so, Madam Speaker, I have measured this Bill against international best practice, specifically at the regulatory frameworks of the UK and Australia. Both recognised globally for robust health profession regulation. And, Madam Speaker, the comparison reveals significant departures from international standards and I shall address six critical areas of concern. Firstly, patient safety and the abolition of the preregistration examination. Madam Speaker, let me draw the attention of the House to the Explanatory Memorandum and also to clause 11 of the Bill which both deal with preregistration where it is explicitly stated that the object of this Bill is to abolish the preregistration examination for opticians and this is not a minor administrative trick, Madam Speaker. This is the removal of a critical safeguard. Madam Speaker, under the 2021 Act, practitioners were required to hold an approved qualification and pass a preregistration examination and this served as a final regulatory gatekeeping mechanism. It verified professional competency beyond paper qualification and ensured that graduates, Madam Speaker, met local clinical standards. Madam Speaker, now this House needs to be informed what safeguards will replace this examination to ensure that practitioners entering the profession meet the required competency standards to protect the Mauritian public. We must also remember that optometry education standards vary significantly across countries. For example, Madam Speaker, how will the Council verify that foreign trained practitioners meet local clinical standards without a preregistration examination? Et cette nécessité, Madame la présidente, est fondamentale. Moi-même, en tant qu’ingénieur de profession, je suis passé par là. J’ai dû faire deux années d’apprentissage et passer des examens avant de pouvoir exercer comme un ingénieur professionnel. Alors là, on est en train d’abolir that preregistration, Madam Speaker. Now, let us have a look at international practice, Madam Speaker. For example, in Australia, overseas trained optometrists must pass the Competency in Optometry Examination. A very rigorous assessment comprising both written and clinical components, administered by the Optometric Council of Australia and New Zealand before they can be granted a general registration. In the UK, the General Optical Council maintains strict accreditation standards for qualification and may require additional training or assessment for overseas applicants. The WHO, in its 2024 Guidance on Health Practitioner Regulation, explicitly identifies defining minimum levels for competence as a core regulatory function for patient safety. And what are we doing here, in Mauritius? We are being asked to abolish this safeguard without a structured replacement. Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minister aware that most international regulatory bodies retain mandatory competency assessment prior to registration? Then again, if so, why is Mauritius moving in the opposite direction? And if you will allow me, I will put that question. Does Government have a sinister motive in abolishing the preregistration examination for opticians? Madam Speaker, by removing this examination, we are prioritising the speed of registration over the safety of the patient. This House, Madam Speaker, seeks assurance that alternative, robust competency assessment, whether a supervised internship, a clinical portfolio or a modified examination will be put in place. Otherwise, Madam Speaker, we risk diluting the standards of eyecare in our country. Madam Speaker, let me now dwell on an important clause of the Bill which I raised earlier and which concerns the governance and independence of the regulator, which to me, is fundamental to this piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, let me refer to clause 7 which restructures the Optical Council. As it is, it is set in the Explanatory Memorandum and the hon. Minister explained to us that this specific clause is to address an anomaly with regard to public sector representation. Yet, Madam Speaker, the proposed composition under the clause 7(1) shows a fundamental shift in the balance – now, with only six elected members from the profession and seven ex-officio or appointed members, including representatives from the Ministry of Health, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, the Ministry of Finance and two persons appointed by the hon. Minister. Madam Speaker, may we know from the hon. Minister as to why the number of professional members from the optical sector is being reduced and how does Government intend to preserve the principle of professional self- regulation? Et je retourne à ce que l’honorable ministre Richard Duval avait dénoncé avec beaucoup de verbes il y a quelques années de cela, spécifiquement concernant ce conseil, Madame la présidente. Now, Madam Speaker, let me compare this with international models and I will make reference again to UK and Australia. In the United Kingdom, Madam Speaker, the General Optical Council comprises six registrant members, that is, optometrists and dispensing opticians who are elected by their peers and six lay members, including an independently appointed Chair. This ensures a professional parity while safeguarding public interest through independent oversight. In Australia, the Optometry Board operates under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme with a structured balance of practitioners and community members appointed via a transparent merit-based process. Crucially, Madam Speaker, the Board enjoys statutory independence. Ministerial direction is limited only to broad policy, not individual regulatory decisions. What we see here, under this Bill is that elected professionals are outnumbered. The addition of members appointed directly by the Minister will give executive significant sway over regulatory outcomes. What guarantee, if I may ask the hon. Minister, will he give to this House that these appointment powers will not be used to influence regulatory decisions affecting the optical profession? Madam Speaker, the WHO guidance on this issue is clear: effective regulation requires assurance of independence and the governance and accountability of professional regulators to maintain public confidence. Again, with regard to that, this piece of legislation goes in the opposite direction. Now, another issue, Madam Speaker, is that of conflict of interest and the role of ophthalmologists. Madam Speaker, clause 7 (1) grants a permanent seat to the Consultant-in- Charge of the Subramania Bharati Eye Hospital. Now, while we respect expertise of ophthalmologists, how does granting a permanent seat to a consultant ophthalmologist not constitute a conflict of interest, given that ophthalmology and optometry have overlapping scopes of practice? Allowing one professional to directly participate in regulating another raises concern regarding professional independence and bias in disciplinary matters. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that ophthalmologists in Mauritius may operate optical retail businesses without being registered under the Optical Council? What measures does this Bill, Madam Speaker, introduce to address this regulatory gap and prevent unfair competition? Will the Government consider introducing, Madam Speaker, clear statutory rules regarding the ownership of optical shops to ensure that dispensing activities are properly supervised by registered professionals? We cannot have a situation where one group is strictly regulated while another operates outside the regulatory framework. Madam Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to clause 3 which deletes the definition of “practice of optometry” from the principal Act. How will the removal of this statutory definition not create legal ambiguity regarding who is authorised to perform optometric procedures? Legal definitions, Madam Speaker, establish the boundaries of professional practice. Removing this definition will definitely create uncertainty regarding what activities constitute optometry and how enforcement should occur. Without a clear legal definition, Madam Speaker, how does the Government intend to prosecute individuals or companies engaged in the illegal practice of optometry? Again, I will refer the House to international practice. In the United Kingdom, the Opticians Act of 1989 contains precise statutory definition of regulated activities, that is, sight testing, contact lens fitting, sale of optical appliances. Therefore, enabling clear prosecution of illegal practice. In Australia, the national law provides an explicit framework for defining the practice of the profession, supported by board-endorsed scope of practice statements. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, merging the definition of “optician” in this Bill risks blurring the distinction between clinical practitioners and retail optical operators, thereby weakening professional enforcement. This leads me to a broader concern, Madam Speaker. Let me ask the Minister: Has his Ministry conducted an assessment of the number of companies currently operating in Mauritius in breach of the Optical Council Act of 2021? If this is the case, may I ask him to table a report before this House? Can the hon. Minister reassure the House that this amendment bill is not designed directly or indirectly to regularise or protect companies that have been operating illegally in this country? The timing of this piece of legislation raises legitimate concerns and questions, Madam Speaker. If we are removing competency assessment and blurring professional definitions, who truly benefits? What specific enforcement mechanisms does this Bill introduce to strengthen the Council’s ability to prosecute illegal optical practice? Madam Speaker, in the UK, optical businesses must be enrolled with the General Optical Council and comply with published standards. In Australia, business registration is separate from practitioner registration with clear corporate governance requirements. Madam Speaker, we cannot support reforms that appear to lower barriers for some while raising burdens for registered and compliant practitioners. Madam Speaker, given the profound changes proposed, allow me to question the Minister on whether the Optical Council – he said that, but I am saying ‘formally’ – was formally consulted prior to the drafting of this amendment bill? If this is the case, as he said, will he table the Council’s written response before the House? Were registered optometrists and dispensing opticians given a formal opportunity to submit representation before finalising this piece of legislation? Regulatory reform, Madam Speaker, requires trust and collaboration. Is this the case with this piece of legislation? The WHO emphasises that transparent processes for standard setting and appointment are essential for regulatory legitimacy. Rushing this legislation without meaningful engagement, Madam Speaker, is, in my humble opinion, taking risk of creating a regulatory framework that lacks professional buying and public confidence. Madame la présidente, en guise de conclusion, c’est vrai que quand j’ai regardé le projet de loi, c’est un projet de loi qui va, éventuellement, apporter une certaine dose de clarification à la profession, ce qui est une bonne chose pour les citoyens de ce pays. Mais en contrepartie, il y a beaucoup de questions auxquelles le ministre doit répondre afin de rassurer cette population. Je vous remercie, Madame la présidente.

Merci beaucoup. Maintenant, j’ai le Dr. Aumeer ! (5.54 p.m.) Dr. F. Aumeer (Third Member for Port Louis South & Port Louis Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the second time that I am getting the opportunity to give my opinion and views on the Optical Bill, which was firstly presented to this House in 2021. I have listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition, and I have to tell him that if today the Minister has had to bring certain amendments to the Optical Bill – notwithstanding that we all agree to everything – it is exactly because of the flaws and the perceptions that have been in that Bill when it was enacted, which favoured a few! Secondly, when he talks about the fact that we do not have any public officers, namely opticians, working on contractual agreement in the public hospitals, he then says that we should not have the Consultant Ophthalmology sitting on the Board. He is contradicting himself! You either want one or not. But I fully support that we do need a specialist in the field of ocular vision, namely ophthalmologists, to sit around with opticians to bring the best eyesight care standard in this country. Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the hon. Minister, when he is bringing in amendments to this Bill, his main objectives and concerns are to strengthen the regulation of optical profession, and, at the same time, enhance the quality of eye care services in this country. Obviously, amendments are brought because he had thought and seen that there were gaps and shortcomings in the previous Bill and his aim must now be seen in the amendments that he is bringing as to improving registration, licensing procedures and clarifying the scope of the practice. All changes that are to be brought must be seen to protect the public at large. These are the main people who are concerned, not us law makers or whatever we call ourselves, but it is the public sitting outside, there, should be seen as being protected and as having the best benefits of these amendments. Also, the profession, a profession which will be professionally accountable but also having a forward working optical practice. Madam Speaker, for discussion’s sake, it is extremely important that the House and the public at large, who are listening to us, understand the purview of this Bill and who of those who will be directly involved in the delivery of care of eye sight in this country – talking widely, the optical practice. We are talking about optometrist; we have four categories –  Optometrist;  Dispensing optician;  Opticien lunetier, and  the Orthotist. For those who, here, maybe find all these terms confusing –  The optometrist sells glasses, contact lenses, consult you, can specify glasses but cannot prescribe medications. It is very important and this is why I will say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, we need to have a consultant Ophthalmologist on the Council. They are allowed to prescribe.  Dispensing opticians only sell glasses and fit contact lenses. They are not supposed to do consultation unless they have acquired bachelor degrees afterwards that allow them to do that.  L’opticien lunetier, lui c’est quelqu’un qui est gradué en France et c’est un concept très strict same as the optometrist but are not allowed to look after those below the age of 16, and  the orthotist, his main scope of work is to investigate, diagnose those who have broad eye movement disorder, binocular vision, strabismus, like myself – some people always call me tire cari guet diriz ene kote. But are not allowed to sell glasses. So, we need good orthotists in this country. Madam Speaker, having said so, having gone very in depth into the Bill, I will broadly comment on three aspects. However, I have to say that the three aspects on which I am going to comment on does not mean that I am going against the intentions and the concept that have been elucidated in the Bill by the hon. Minister but only to say that my concerns are as they would be and I am sure the hon. Minister during his summing up will be able to reassure us – and knowing him very well, you had a long talk yesterday as well, – I am sure he will make amendments if he deems necessary. I will comment mainly on the abolition of pre-registration examination for those opticians and orthotists, about deleting the definition of the practice of optometry, and thirdly, if time allows, composition of the Council. I have to say that I had a few meetings with representatives of the Optical Association of this country and the Optical Council. I have listened to their views not saying that all that they said were determinant in what I am going to say but I gave a listening ear to them and I am sure the hon. Minister has done the same as I did. I will not comment on the abolition of pre-examination, pre-registration exams likewise as I did in 2021. At the time, the arguments were, we will have selective exemption of certain optician, optometrist or dispenser optician that come from United Kingdom and I was totally against in my speech that we cannot have selective exemption. We either need to have exams for all or we don’t do the exams. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the hon. Minister has come and said today in his Bill that he is not favourable that we continue with exams, and is, therefore, abolishing it. So, we have gone from one extreme to the other. My question is: we should not be taking the preregistration exam very lightly because such a system has proven and delivered its promise. In May 1921, exams were carried by the Optical Council and it showed that the past rate was only 15%. They changed it to have foreign examiners and, subsequently, when the content of the examination papers was produced, the pass rate has improved to 40%. The question that I ask myself, and we should ask ourselves: why abolishing a process that are standard practice in various parts of the world, including United Kingdom, India or other parts in Europe, developing countries? We are reversing a process, and, whether we like it or not, exams have ensured an unbiased evaluation of all concerned in the field of optometry irrespective of whether some like it or not. Exams are objective assessments, it is unbiased, it is objective. For the four categories, I have mentioned, there are different sets of papers for them, they have different pass marks. Also, the questions that have been put in the Optical Council exams are not theoretical, they are all practical. And, finally, the number of times you can take the exams, even you fail ten times you can still take exams – there is what we call an endless number of attempts. I am of the opinion, Madam Speaker, that we need to have benchmark standards in the practice of eyecare since it is a very delicate practice. If we look here, I just had a count today. 30% of us sitting here wear glasses, this is it. 40% of the population have non-communicable diseases. Out of it, diabetes form nearly 400,000 people, pre-diabetic or diabetic have eye sight issues. This is serious. We are talking of a profession that we should not take lightly, whatever the amendments we will bring. Knowing quite well that we have optometrists and opticians that come from different parts of the world and institutions, we have to be extremely careful as to whom of those we are going to give a license to practice. Otherwise, because a practice that has acceptable standards, who are recognised otherwise we will be opening a can of worms and I mean it – we will be opening can of worms because the backdoor entry will just wide open. When it comes to foreign opticians, I fully agree we can’t just subject them to examination, we will discourage people to come. We have a way where councils have temporary registrations where they won’t need exams. Some people have said exams are biased. Exams are truly biased, Madam Speaker. You know why they are biased? They are biased against those who do not study. Those who don’t come to the scratch. Those who do not have the level of expertise. Those who have not made it fully by attending their courses. Exams are biased against these people. Otherwise, exams have proven that it will show exactly who those who are competent, efficient, highly professional and deliver the best skill service. Madam Speaker, professional expertise is at the core of any regulation and accreditation. If exams – which I take myself and engage myself personally, which I fully support, – is to be removed, I hope that the hon. Minister of Health must reassure the population at large, and the public, of a system that he would be putting in place, that has – 1. strict educational accreditation validated by the local and foreign authorities; 2. evidence of accredited university training by those who are applying to be registered, where the prospecting optician has been doing his training, and 3. thirdly, licencing must be linked to recognise educational authorities. In my opinion, Madam Speaker, competency assessment, be it through existing exams or any other mechanism which the hon. Minister may deem fit, and, surely, he has that in mind, must ensure that only those with the highest standards of practice, competency, professional integrity, based on evidenced medical practice, those are the ones who should be recognised by the Council. For example, the developing world also has noted that they need to come with a more valid form of assessment and they came with their OSCE. This amendment must not be seen as a back door entry for those who knowingly well, cannot take exams in view of their limited competency to have an easy registration pathway to the Council. I would just complete my arguments and I have noted at section 17, subsection 2(d) where the practitioner will pass such an interview as conducted by the Council. I would have been very comforted by the Bill if there were more details about who would conduct the interview; whether it will be local practitioners, foreign practitioners, whether it will be members of the Council that will be coopted to have an expertise in optometry or in relation to the field and that will surely be an element of subjective assessment and we have to be extremely careful. Any subjective assessment will bring this element of bias and can be contested by anybody. Thank you, very much.

Thank you, Dr. Aumeer. Yes, Mr Beechook. (6.06 p.m.) Mr R. Beechook (Second Member for Flacq & Bon Accueil): Merci, Madame la présidente. Madame la présidente, en ce début de soirée, nous débattons des amendements à l’Optical Council Act 2021. Mon ami et collègue du Parlement a largement élaboré, d’ailleurs de par son métier, l’aspect vraiment médical du dossier mais néanmoins, moi, je vais élaborer sur le marché de l’optique, Madame, rightly so, the hon. Member has pointed it out, it concerns 40% of Mauritians. Cependant, Madame la présidente, ce marché est dominé par la mainmise atomisante de l’Optical Council. Si je dois résumer ce marché, je me réfère à l’adage en Kreol qui dit – « Met lisien vey sosis. » Je vais m’expliquer, Madame la présidente. Qui dit marché, dit revenue. Qui dit revenue, dit intérêts commerciaux. Qui dit intérêts commerciaux, dit profits. Et lorsque ces acteurs, par la même, les bénéficiers de ces intérêts commerciaux sont chargés de réguler la pratique du métier et par ricochet le marché lui-même, qu’avons-nous ? Une situation ubuesque résumant l’adage lisien vey sosis. La loi de 2021, Madame la présidente, a donné lieu à une cartellisation sidérante, cadenassant, verrouillant, à double, triple, quadruple tours l’accès au marché aux nouveaux opérateurs et cela, aux profits des opérateurs existants. Nous avons vu dans le discours du ministre de la Santé comment en l’absence des représentants légitimes de l’État, l’Optical Council a été accaparé par des opérateurs sans scrupules. Figurerez-vous, le Registrar de l’Optical Council est lui-même un opérateur du marché de l’optique. N’est-ce pas un cas flagrant de conflit d’intérêt ? Je félicite le ministre de la Santé d’être aujourd’hui vent debout contre toutes les lobbys mercantilistes en faveur du maintien du statu quo. Madame la présidente, l’opposition et les opposants aux amendements ciblent l’élimination de l’examen qui mène à l’enregistrement des opticiens, des ophtalmologues, des opticiens lunetier, etc… Madame la présidente, sachez que ces examens justement, c’est le kalashnikov entre les mains des accapareurs du conseil qui s’en sert pour re-éliminer de manière chirurgicale la compétition dans le marché. Je m’explique. Comment ces examens sont-ils organisés ? Par le MES. Sur la recommandation de qui ? L’Optical Council. Qui sont les examinateurs ? Ils sont choisis selon une liste de trois ou quatre personnes. Soumise par qui ? L’Optical Council. Qui rédigent les papiers d’examen ? Ces mêmes personnes inféodées à l’Optical Council. Qui corrigent ces papiers d’examen et notent les candidats ? Ces mêmes personnes. Résultat ?

Judge and party!

En juin 2024, seuls 9 candidats sur 22 ont pu passer les examens. En novembre 2024, seuls 7 sur 29. C’est une aberration, Madame la présidente. Toujours au sujet des examens, la loi stipule que les examens doivent avoir lieu tous les ans. Quand est-ce que les derniers examens ont-ils eu lieu ? En Novembre 2024 ! Il y a plus d’un an et demi. Et imaginez-vous que s’est-t-il déroulé depuis ? 1. Beaucoup de magasins de l’optique, notamment les petits, ont fermé parce qu’en l’absence d’opticiens, ils ne peuvent opérer. 2. Les professionnels étrangers, en quête d’une occupation permit, ils obtiennent d’abord un titre de séjour temporaire d’un an en attendant les examens et bien, ils sont éliminés et ils sont contraints de rentrer dans leurs pays parce que cela fait plus d’un an qu’il n’y a pas eu d’examen. Cela profite à qui ? Les opérateurs existants. Et, cela pénalise qui ? Les nouveaux entrants. C’est de la persécution professionnelle. La perversion la plus nauséabonde, Madame la présidente, l’Optical Council profite de cette situation pour outrepasser son mandat, pour aller rencontrer des entités, notamment étatiques, le ministère de la Sécurité sociale, la SICOM, la NIC. Pour faire quoi ? Pour faire éliminer les prestataires qui s’inscrivent auprès de ces instances. C’est de l’élimination commerciale de prestataires. J’ai devant moi, Madame la présidente, une lettre datant du 26 mars 2025 émanant du ministère de la Sécurité sociale. Je vais lire les grandes lignes – “The Ministry in collaboration with the Optical Council of Mauritius…” Entre autres, qu’est-ce qu’ils ont fait ? Ils sont allés rencontrer les officiers du ministère de la Sécurité sociale sans que cela soit dans leurs mandat. Et par la suite, quel a été le résultat ? “Thus, you are being deregistered from the Ministry’s list of suppliers of spectacles with immediate effect.” Des opérateurs qui s’inscrivent auprès du ministère de la Sécurité sociale bénéficient d’un grant de R5000 pour supply des lunettes pour les plus vulnérables. On a outrepassé ce mandat pour aller éliminer la compétition. Il a fallu une mise en demeure et l’avis légal du State Law Office pour qu’au bout de deux mois, cette entreprise, un nouvel entrant sur le marché, soit réinscrit dans le registre des prestataires du ministère de la Sécurité sociale. Voilà comment opère cette mafia ! Pour terminer, Madame la présidente, on parle de ce fameux enregistrement des professionnels. Il faut voir la bonne foi du législateur qui dit qu’il a mis en place un conseil et ce conseil est chargé de mettre en place un mécanisme. Justement, ce n’est pas un système ou on va enregistrer qui on veut ou à tour de bras. Bien sûr, il y aura un examen de chaque dossier par des professionnels. Mais en ce qu’il s’agit de ce fameux enregistrement, Madame la présidente, I can tell it without fear or favour. Le cas de ce candidat, c’est une aberration ! Ce candidat remue ciel et terre pour avoir un enregistrement auprès du conseil de l’Optical Council. Cette personne est titulaire d’un baccalauréat in optometry. Le terme baccalauréat en soi est un undergraduate degree, une licence. They use alternative terms, either baccalauréat degree or Bachelor’s degree. En raison de ce changement d’appellation, en fonction des pays, des universités, c’est quelque chose tout à fait praticable. Ce candidat a soumis des documentations émanant du World Council of Optometry, du Botswana Optometrists Association en Afrique, de l’Indian Optometric Association, India, du Maha Optometry Association, Mumbai, toutes ces documentations pour soutenir qu’il est titulaire d’un undergraduate degree, d’une licence en optométrie. En dépit de cela, Madame la présidente, il a été éliminé. Son enregistrement n’a pas eu lieu ! Pourquoi ? Parce que le conseil se cache derrière le Third Schedule, Section 18(2) of the Optical Act whereby acceptable qualifications are Bachelor’s degree in Optometry/Ophthalmic Optometry. But this baccalauréat in optometry is an undergraduate degree in optometry! Voilà comment les personnes de mauvaise foi ont tué, anéanti les candidats ! Je pose la question autrement, Madame la présidente. Nous, au sein de ce gouvernement et dans ce pays, sommes tous d’accord qu’il faut attirer les meilleurs talents étrangers pour venir travailler pour rehausser le niveau de service et apporter leur expertise. Mais je pose une simple question à cette Chambre : comment convaincre un Anglais, un Indien, un Américain, un Français, ayant plus de 20 ans d’expérience et étant inscrit auprès de l’instance suprême dans son pays d’origine, de venir travailler à l’île Maurice ? On lui dit : « Tu sais, il faut que tu passes l’examen de l’Optical Council. » C’est une aberration, Madame la présidente ! An hon. Member: Incroyable !

On ne pourra pas le faire ! La raison, le résultat, c’est qu’aujourd’hui, ceux qui sont là depuis longtemps tiennent des commerces dans des grands centres commerciaux, ils ont pignon sur rue, sur les axes principaux du pays. Et les nouveaux entrants, ils ont du mal à trouver de la main-d’œuvre. Tout au long, la rhétorique de mon discours, c’est pour vous démontrer, Madame la présidente, comment l’Optical Council a usé de son pouvoir pour éliminer la compétition. Je vais terminer, Madame la présidente. La compétition est importante. Il est crucial de démocratiser l’accès à ce métier. Je prends l’exemple de mes verres à moi. Cela m’a coûté R 12,000 ; les verres antireflets, etc. Le même verre, Madame la présidente, je l’ai acheté dans un petit magasin d’un nouvel entrant sur le marché. Les mêmes verres, quasiment gamme moyenne, ça vous coûte entre R 35,000 et R 45,000 dans un magasin qui est là depuis longtemps et qui est parenté ou a des contacts au sein de l’Optical Council. Ce Bill va permettre, Madame la présidente, l’épanouissement des nouveaux entrants au sein de ce marché, de décadenasser, de déverrouiller l’accès au marché et d’offrir aux Mauriciens des lunettes de qualité, inscrites par les professionnels à des prix abordables. This is why, Madam Speaker, I am here to commend the Bill to the House. Thank you.

Merci. Merci. Merci beaucoup ! Je remercie tous ceux qui font un effort pour que le public comprenne bien les enjeux. Honourable Ms Babooram ! (6.20 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Health and Wellness (Ms A. Babooram): Madam Speaker, before I proceed with the substance of my contribution, I wish to extend my sincerest and most heartfelt commendation to the hon. Minister, Mr Bachoo, besides whom I have the privilege now to humbly serve at the Ministry of Health and Wellness, for his extraordinary dedication, tireless effort and sheer commitment in bringing this Bill before this House. This is not a simple piece of legislation.

(Interruptions)

Chut!

It touches upon the livelihood of dozens of professionals. The health outcomes of hundreds of thousands of Mauritians and the integrity of any industry that has grown considerably over the years. Madam Speaker, let me paint a picture of where we stand today. The Optical Council today comprises around 106 registered professionals both Mauritians and expats who are registered as optometrist, opticien-lunetier, and dispensing opticians, but there are no registered orthoptists. This is our first reason for this Bill: to be able to register orthoptists when they become available in the country. Unlike optometrists, orthoptists, as has been thoroughly explained by hon. Dr. Aumeer, are specialised in binocular vision anomalies and other complex conditions that affect how the eyes work together. They provide the appropriate therapy in each case. There are now many foreigners in the optical industry and they are trained in various countries. This further explains the importance of a proper Optical Bill. Now, coming to our local graduates and professionals, previously, they had to undergo a professional exam before being registered. However, not many could clear the exam because of a lack of transparency, information and proper training. The Optical Council (Amendment) Bill will recognise our young professionals and register them in due course if they fulfil all the required criteria. The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness has already pointed out the many flaws in the existing Act. I will not, therefore, indulge into this again. Madam Speaker, the industry is a flourishing one. That is why rigorous checks and proper scrutiny into the profession is needed. There was a time when ophthalmologists, alongside two or three opticians, used to recruit opticians and dispensing opticians in the eye hospital. We now have optometrists who are qualified to diagnose different eye pathology using certain equipment and ophthalmic drops and refer to eye specialists whenever needed. The same has been mentioned in the Bill. This explains the need for a proper Bill and regulations in order to monitor our optical professionals and avoid cases of malpractice. The study of optometry is not currently available in Mauritius. Therefore, our students travel abroad to pursue their studies. When they choose to return back to Mauritius, they have a legitimate expectation to be recognised as professionals and serve this country; their country. In this respect, this Bill aims to make it easier for our young professionals to contribute massively to the welfare of the society. Madam Speaker, with a growing and ageing population of Mauritius, there is a need for optometrists, especially in our five regional hospitals. We currently only have part-time optometrists serving in the public sector. This explains the long waiting list, understaffed facilities and preventable suffering. It has been noted that our local professionals are not quite interested in working full-time in hospitals. It would then be of utmost importance to recruit optometrists from abroad. Apart from that, with the new Bill and newly registered optometrists, there is a scope that our locals would be willing to work in the five regional hospitals in order to ensure the continuity of care. I have spoken about our hospitals being greatly understaffed. I think we need to ponder on this option. Both our hospitals and that of Rodrigues cater for the maximum number of patients needing glasses. This Government has worked towards a proper regulation of the optical body that this Bill will attain. Our patients waiting for glasses in hospitals will find their needs satisfied in due course. Thus, reducing the load on our ophthalmologists, allowing them to focus on more complex eye care such as surgeries and after-care. Optometrists are primary eye care providers. They are known for dispensing glasses and helping patients to see better but little do patients know that optometrists can diagnose various eye pathologies on the very first visit. Some systemic diseases are seen through eye pathologies and we take the example of diabetic retinopathy that is associated with diabetes mellitus. For instance, many children do not realise that we have a decreased vision. They think it is normal to see poorly. However, when the child is brought in for a regular eye exam, starting as young as five years, it can help in detection of many vision anomalies. A well-regulated, well-staffed optical profession which is precisely what this Bill moves us towards, is a prerequisite for ensuring that our children’s vision needs are identified and addressed early. Under the current legislation, it has come to our attention that some professionals with appropriate qualifications have been denied registration for as far as 10 years and when asked for a reason – no transparency, no apparent reason were forthcoming. Whereas this Government has made sure that this Bill aims for transparency as its core importance. Our aim is to cater for our local professionals recognise their contribution to society. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us the importance on relying on local resources. Now, with the crisis in the Middle East, we will definitely need the help of all of our professionals. This Bill facilitates and encourages our professionals in the Diaspora to come and serve our country. Zealous in our commitment to progress, this Government has shown the vision, the will and the determination to modernise our institutions and place the welfare of our people at the very heart of its action. At the core of this Bill, lies fairness, transparency and the recognition of merit, ensuring that no qualified Mauritian is left behind. Harnessing the potential of our professionals, both locally and abroad, we are determined to build a stronger, more self- reliant healthcare system. Empowering our youth and restoring confidence in our institutions, this reform paves the way for a brighter and more inclusive future. Every citizen stands to benefit from a system that upholds quality, accountability and equal opportunity. Rooted in unity, guided by purpose, we must continue working together to strengthen our nation and uplift our people. As we move forward, let us do so with pride and determination shaping a Mauritius that reflects the excellence, resilience and dignity of its people. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much. Thank you for respecting the time. Yes, hon. Dr. Boolell! (6.29 p.m.) The Minister of Agro-industry, Food Security, Blue Economy and Fisheries (Dr. A. Boolell): Madam Speaker, I feel like saying only fools rush in where angels fear to tread and I must say if the hon. Minister has stood up and convincingly spoke of the merits of this legislation, it is precisely to correct not only an anomaly, but a Bill which should not have been introduced in the first place. I am not going to say how controversial it is but the hon. Minister is right, he is being decisive and incisive to bring the necessary amendments and he deserves our congratulations because time is of an essence and it is the signals which we send to the public which are relevant. I made it a point to listen to the speeches delivered by our hon. Friends and I must say some of the arguments put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition are worth listening to. Notwithstanding what our good friend, our fellow from Dublin has said – the good hon. Dr. Aumeer – but we will come to the harsh realities. I listened to the arguments put forward by our good friend who has spoken very eloquently and he has put across arguments which cannot be rebutted and I say hats off to you, Sir. And of course, as to the hon. Lady, she has lived up to expectation. But let me say, what the naked truth is. Our friend, the hon. Minister had lent his ears to those who had been complaining and there was a lot of hue and cry from professionals who have been denied the legitimate rights to work as professionals and this in itself is tantamount to violation by an Optical Council which is not legitimate. It may have the legacy but it is not legitimate and it has operated as a closed shop. If we are a government which is responsible, we have to speak up and be heard and we cannot tolerate an institution to operate simply because it has the legacy but to operate in all illegitimacy. As a responsible government, we have to act and act without fear or prejudice because this is the mandate that we have. The hon. Minister is right to say the buck stops here. We have to refer to Section 18(3)(b) of the current Act as has been highlighted by our distinguished friend which provides that examination for registration of opticians shall be held once a year. But since the Bill was proclaimed – how many times have exams been held and to whose detriment? And who has hidden behind the MES? MES has simply acted as a facade and who prepared the exam papers?

That is the question!

Who prepared the exam papers? It is not because they have invited a few foreign examiners that the job is done. The paper was set deliberately to undermine the process of democracy and we cannot allow democratic values to be violated and the Minister is right to come and say: we are going to widen the circle of opportunities, create opportunities for those who are eligible, who have a legitimate right, who had spent time overseas studying. Not everybody has the means to go and study in Dublin or France but some make the sacrifices and they go to reputed institutions in India or elsewhere and when they come back, should they be discriminated up on and denied their legitimate rights? What else have we not been told – that there is no provision for definition of optometrists. But when we look at the provision of legislation, it is there, looking at us, glaring, obvious, and yet, when I had a letter from the acting Chairperson of the Optical Council, she said there is no provision. But provision is there! When we look at the law, the definition …

Section 3.

Section 3, you said it, section 3(g) – ““optometrist” – (a) means a person who – (i) evaluates visual acuity and prescribes, fits and supplies optical appliances for remedial purposes; and (ii) uses such equipment and such medication as miotics, cycloplegics, (…) as may be necessary for remedial purposes;” And when we look at the Council, Madam Speaker, there is legitimate provision for the Minister not only to have his leeway – certainly, he is not going to have his leeway – but who are those appointed by Government? Or am I to understand that the representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office will bend backwards to the whim and caprices of those who think they can exercise undue influence? Or the representatives from the Attorney General’s office? And who are the two members who are going to be appointed by the Minister? Any Tom, Dick and Harry? We are a government which has the responsibility to act and to act without fear or prejudice. When you are in government, you decide and you govern not in poetry but in prose. That is why we are here! Madam Speaker, let me say and I say it in prose, of course, I have talked of membership and I have talked of transparency but there have been sound arguments also put forward and I do say, because there are provisions for regulations. Supervised internship, we are not against. This is what regulations are here for. What stops us to say that, in the distant future, we may entertain the proposal made by our good friend, hon. Dr. Aumeer? Why not? The law is an ass but we have to amend, we have to regulate, otherwise there is no point in us sitting here, Madam Speaker, if we are not going to amend. Let me also make it quite clear, in relation to who is an orthoptist. Optometrist, we already know about. An orthoptist has to have basic knowledge in brain anatomy. He has to have basic knowledge. You know, the hon. Prime Minister would say the best way to remember the 12 nerves, you know what it is? I will not say it. He is laughing.

We do not know!

No, I will not say it that way, otherwise you will ask me to go out. I do not want to be! I can start O, O, O, that is all.

O, O, O. Okay!

Yes, doctors’ secret. In good, how do we say that? As good; not hypocrites but as good Hippocrates.

Hippocrates! Hippocrates!

Now, let me make it quite clear that there is a vast difference and an orthoptist not withstanding that he has to acquire knowledge in relation to brain anatomy, but he is also part and parcel of a team run diligently by an ophthalmologist and they work in hospital. And it is a service delivered and it has to be delivered as a team and with a team spirit. And this is what an orthoptist does. He makes early diagnosis in children, does not only prescribe glasses to be worn but he has more depth as I say, scale and score. Is it lazy eye? Can the blurred or double vision be corrected with an eye patch or glasses? If not, will minor surgery do? But there is more to amblyopia or strabismus. Now, I will also refer and the comeback to section 7. You know, when I assess the Vet Council, do you know the problems we are having? It is a mirror image of the problem being encountered in relation to the Optical Council. It is lock, stock and barrel and they prevent good qualified vets to be registered. And I have flagged the issue, I have flagged it but it is time for us now to bring the necessary amendment as a responsible Government and we are not going to retreat nor surrender and I congratulate my good friend, the hon. Minister because he has not retreated nor surrendered under the able leadership of the hon. Prime Minister. Thank you very much.

Thank you! Yes, hon. Minister! (6.40 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, to start with, I would like to thank all my colleagues, Members of Parliament, who have taken part in this debate and now, the House will realise the reason why we have brought this Bill. On the contrary, we have been too late and I know the sufferings that many of our own children have undergone. They have been sitting there for the past many years without getting the right to work in those optical shops. You know, throughout the island, we have got optical shops which are mushrooming everywhere but the right to work in those shops is meant only for the handful. They are enjoying the luxuries of life, other than lacking the basic necessities of life and that, as a responsible Government, we could not have accepted it. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, in the beginning, referred to the statement that I had made, that the Act as it is, is unstatutory because there are three members, three opticians who form part of the Council and I had mentioned that they are illegal. It is not legal because they are not officials and then I have to maintain that they are not officers because they are working on a part time basis and according to the Attorney General’s Office advice, they are not officials and that is the reason why I had maintained that from the very beginning, this Act itself was illegal and I am going to maintain it. I would like to refer to the speech made by our friend, hon. Uteem, that was on the Optical Council Bill in July 2021. I get the feeling that, of course, I have to congratulate him because he was farsighted at that time. He was wise enough to have mentioned a few things which we have seen. I am quoting him. While participating in the debates for the Optical Council Bill 2021, he stated – “There is one aspect of the Bill which has not been dealt with by the then Minister of Health and Wellness and it is the establishment of a monopoly for local opticians when it comes to selling spectacles and optical appliances. This Bill is creating a monopoly. As from the day the Bill is passed, only a registered local optician will be able to sell spectacles and contact lenses in the country.” Hon. Uteem further denounced the fact that the main object of the Optical Council Bill was to give opticians the exclusive right to sell spectacles and contact lenses. He also termed this as a lobby from a small group. The latter brought proceedings against 12 companies, seeking an order from the Court, preventing them from selling spectacles and lenses but on the day of the hearing, they withdrew the case. He further emphasised the need to allow competition in this sector, is not just to drive down prices. It is also to do with protecting young opticians who do not have the financial means to invest in equipment, to invest in stock of branded glasses. I thank him for that. He was farsighted enough and he struck the nail rightly. Madam Speaker, it is necessary for me to address certain arguments that have been put forward regarding this Bill. The true intent of this Bill is to modernise and rebalance the regulatory framework governing the optical profession in our country. We have to correct the structural weaknesses that have emerged under the current system, including excessive gatekeeping, lack of transparency and regulatory capture as my friends have already mentioned. This reform ensures that the Optical Council operates in the public interest, strengthens governance, broadens representations and aligns the regulatory framework with contemporary healthcare systems where patient protection, not professional control, is paramount. Let me state clearly, many of the arguments reflect a desire to preserve entrenched interest rather than to advance patient care or modern regulation. Let me also remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition, who was in Government in 2021, had a significant responsibility in ushering through the House a Bill which turned out to be illegal and which gave rise to gross unfairness and injustices. Regarding examinations, Madam Speaker, this reform was not taken lightly. It is a deliberate and necessary correction of a system that had become fundamentally flawed, unfair, and out of step with modern regulatory practice. Let me remind the House that according to the Optical Council Act of 2021, examinations were supposed to held – as my friend, hon. Dr. Boolell, mentioned – at least yearly. Members of the Council acted illegally, and only two examinations were held. In six years’ time, we had only 16 who were qualified as opticians, out of hundreds of them who were still roaming around. Let me now delve more deeply in issues related to these examinations. The existing examination process, as my friends have already mentioned, raised serious concerns regarding fairness and transparency, as the members of the Council were involved – as you have heard – in determining examiners and those responsible for marking. So, they were marking, correcting and doing everything. It was their business. Such an arrangement creates an inherent conflict of interest and undermines confidence and integrity. That is the reason they left no stone unturned to see to it that this Bill does not pass in this House. Secondly, while the Mauritius Examinations Syndicate was involved, it was limited to only administrative oversight. It did not provide independent technical validation of the content, standard-setting, or marking. Therefore, the core academic and professional integrity of the examination remained within the control of the very body being regulated, which is not acceptable. Thirdly, Madam Speaker, opticians fall within the broader category of Allied Health Professionals. It is important to note that under the Allied Health Professionals Council, there are no such pre-registration examinations. Competency is ensured through recognised qualifications and regulatory oversight – not through potentially exclusionary examinations. When we speak of allied professionals, in our country, we have six clusters of Allied Health Professionals in my Ministry. They do not undergo any examination. I am going to name a few of them. For example, Occupational Therapists, Orthopaedic Technicians, Physiotherapists, Podiatrists, Chiropodists, Sports Therapists, Audiologists, Speech and Language Therapists, Dieticians, Nutritionists, Psychologists, Clinical Psychologists, Psychotherapists, Psychomotor Therapists, Chiropractors, Osteopaths, Clinical Scientists, Medical Imaging Technologists, Medical Laboratory Technologists. They do not participate in examinations. They are skilled. They are doing very well, but they are controlled by the Allied Professional Council. Fourthly, historically, opticians were registered earlier under the Optical Registration Board, where no examinations existed. And that was the case for the past 60 years. There was no evidence that the system compromised standards or patient safety. The introduction of the examination did not demonstrably improve outcomes, but instead introduced barriers and controversy. Fifthly, and most strikingly – this is very funny –, the same examination was required for both opticians and optometrists, despite the clear difference in their training and scope of practice. So, it is a set of paper which is prepared, and both the opticians and the optometrists have to take part in the same examination. It appears as if cardiac surgeons, skin specialists and surgeons, all of them have to take part in the same examination. Madam Speaker, this is not standardisation. It is misclassification, and frankly, it is ludicrous to subject two fundamentally different professions to an identical assessment. Sixthly, internationally, countries such as India and France – both key partners in the training of our health professionals – do not require such examinations for registration. They rely on accredited qualifications and structured regulatory systems. Mauritius is aligning itself with these practical and established models. Seventhly, the possibility of using an independent external examination body was indeed considered. However, this raises significant practical challenges. There are clear cost implications both for the State and for candidates. Furthermore, given that countries like India and France do not operate such examination systems, there is no obvious partner institution readily available to provide such services. Madam Speaker, one must also consider the practical complexity of arranging such examinations. Would we need to engage separate external bodies for opticians, optometrists, and orthoptists? This would introduce fragmentation, increase costs and administrative inefficiency without clear benefit. This reform is about removing an opaque, inconsistent and unjustified barrier, and replacing it with a system grounded in recognised qualifications, fairness and modern regulatory principles. Regulation must ensure competence, not create artificial hurdles. This amendment restores credibility, coherence and fairness to the system. We have heard claims that removing examinations will lower standards. We have heard about it, but this is not correct. As I have just mentioned, there are countries with well- established optical sectors, which do not rely on standalone licensing examinations imposed by regulatory bodies. Rather, we have to rely on –  accredited qualifications;  structured training, and  institutional oversight. Mauritius is not lowering its standards. We are aligning with global best practices. When registration was carried out under the Optical Registration Board, we did not encounter any problem with quality of care or patients’ safety. As I have just mentioned, currently, we have a number of Allied Health Professionals who were doing very well without undergoing those examinations, but they are being controlled by the professional bodies. As far as the composition of the Council is concerned, I heard the Leader of the Opposition; he drew our attention on one point: that there is an attempt from us to monopolise the Council. But, previously, out of 15 members, six were from the private sector and nine was from the Government. That has been the case till now. In the new one, we have 13 members: six from the private sector and seven from the Government. In all the councils that we have or on any board, it is always the Government that has at least an advantage over the others. If we are not going to maintain it, then we are doomed. They will do whatever they like. So, out of 13 members, if they have six and we have seven, which includes representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Finance, the Attorney General’s Office, my Ministry, plus two independent members, as has always been the case, I do not find anything wrong in that. So, let us be frank and we stop deceit. This Bill further introduces –  broader representation;  stronger accountability, and  alignment with national health priorities. A regulator exists to protect the public – not to function as a closed circle of practitioners. It has been suggested that the Government is trying to its will upon them, but that is not true. This is really misleading. We have always worked in this way. What this Bill does is clarify and rationalise that representation. We are not introducing anything new. As far as the definition of “optometry” is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned about it, but this is nonsensical because the definition is very well spelt out in the Act. Under the previous framework, opticians and optometrists were required to take – as I have mentioned – the same examination despite having fundamentally different levels of training and clinical responsibilities. This created a situation where unequal roles were treated as equivalent, which is neither logical nor safe. An optician is primarily a technician – a technical professional involved in dispensing and fitting optical devices, whereas an optometrist is a clinically trained practitioner capable of assessing vision and detecting eye disease. To subject both of them to the same assessment standard is not standardisation. It is miscalculation. Madam Speaker, the amendment corrects this by recognising the different competencies required, appropriately differentiated pathways of assessment and regulation. This strengthens, not weakens, professional standards. It ensures that patients clearly understand who is providing their care. Practitioners are assessed according to their actual scope of practice. Regulatory systems reflect real world clinical distinctions. As far as creating division, this amendment restores coherence, protects patients’ safety and aligns the system with sound regulatory principles. Madam Speaker, eye care, today, is delivered through a multi-disciplinary model. Orthoptists play a critical role in diagnosing and managing visual disorders, particularly in children and neurological condition. Bringing them under the Council to choose uniform standards of care, proper accountability, enhanced patient safety. This is a necessary step towards an integrated and modern eye care system. In any modern healthcare system, multidisciplinary oversight is essential. The presence of an ophthalmologist strengthens –  clinical governance;  patient safety, and  integration across services. To oppose this is to oppose progress in healthcare delivery. Madam Speaker, the removal of a rigid statutory definition of the practice of optometry is a deliberate and well-founded decision grounded in sound legislative principle. Firstly, health care practice, whether in optometry or medicine, is not static. It evolves continuously with advances in technology, new diagnostic tools, changing models of care. To fix a detailed definition in primary legislation, is to freeze a dynamic profession in time rendering the law quickly outdated. In parallel with practice of medicine, Madam Speaker, we do not define the practice of medicine in rigid exhaustive terms within legislation. We do not attempt to list every diagnostic act, every procedure, every evolving intervention, instead the law recognises the profession broadly and trust regulatory bodies to define scope of practice, standards and competencies. The same principle applies here. By removing a fixed definition, the Bill avoids legislative rigidity, empowers regulatory body, ensures relevance over time. Addressing concerns of ambiguity, Madam Speaker, this does not create a vacuum. The scope of practice will be clearly defined through regulations, guidelines and professional standards linked to training and competence, subject to regulatory oversight and discipline. This is a controlled flexibility, not uncertainty. Regulations define who is qualified and accountable, not to attempt to exhaustively define every act they may perform. Madam Speaker, just as we do not confine the practice of medicine within rigid statutory wording, we should not constrain optometry. A modern law must enable a profession to evolve, not trap it in definition that would be obsolete tomorrow. Madam Speaker, it is both surprising and deeply concerning that certain members of Optical Council appear not to understand the most basic function of the very body on which they sit. The Optical Council is not mandated to regulate optical shops. Its role is to regulate professionals, not commercial enterprises. To suggest otherwise reflects either a profound misunderstanding of the law or a deliberate attempt to blur responsibilities for convenience. Regulations for optical shops falls squarely within the scope of other appropriate legislations and this is being looked into. What we are doing through this reform is restoring clarity, professional regulations where it belongs, an institutional and commercial regulations where it must be exercised. Let us be clear, confusing these roles does not protect patient, it weakens oversight. This Bill corrects that. The real issue: resistance to change. Madam Speaker, a clear pattern emerges from the criticisms we have heard. Every reform is portrayed as a threat; reform of entry is a threat; reform of governance is a threat; reform of oversight is a threat, but what is never acknowledge is the risk of doing nothing. A system that restricts entry, lack transparency and resist evolution is itself the greatest threat to patient care. For the summing up, I would say that this Bill not about weakening the profession. It is about strengthening the system. It is about ensuring that regulation serves –  the patient;  the public interest, and  the future of healthcare. Today we are, with this Bill, and most probably tomorrow we will come with a Bill to look at the Medical Council as well because we have a multiplicity of problems in Medical Council, Madam Speaker. Those who resist reforms must ask themselves: are they defending standards or defending control? This Government will always stand –  for patients over privilege;  for transparency over opacity;  for progress over stagnation. I, therefore, commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Optical Council (Amendment) Bill (No. I of 2026) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Optical Council (Amendment) Bill (No. I of 2026) was read a third time and passed.