The Minister made very little attempt to reply to the points made in regard to this proposal, first, the necessity for controlling things so that an additional tax will have to be paid and, second, the type of apparatus which he proposes to control. The implication is that every type of radio-active apparatus is going to be controlled in this particular way. The Minister has offered concessions to the medical profession, but so far as dentists, veterinary surgeons, masseurs and people who use radio-active apparatus in many ways we have no undertaking from the Minister that these will be relieved from the necessity of obtaining licences or of paying a fee. I understand that there is fairly substantial use made of certain classes of this apparatus by people engaged in industry of one kind or another. We object to the proposal made here. We consider that the Minister should, in the first place, be more explicit as to what is proposed and that he should not throw his net as wide as he proposes.
Committee on Finance. - Health Bill, 1952—Financial Resolutions (Resumed).
I do not think I should be accused of not being explicit. I tried to explain to Deputies that radio-active substances, which are becoming more and more available every day, present a great deal of danger to the uninitiated and enormous damage could be done by the uninitiated. For instance, I remember looking at a catalogue of one of the firms in England a few days ago. In that catalogue they advise that every parcel containing a radio-active substance should have printed in large letters on the outside: "Dangerous to touch. If found, telephone such-and-such a number immediately." That isdone because the firm concerned realises the danger. We have no guarantee that firms here will handle these substances and exercise the same caution and care.
Many other instances could be given. I think it is only right that these things should be regulated. The medical profession had some fear that we might try to interfere with them. It was never intended to interfere with them. I have put down an amendment saying that a licence will not be refused to either a doctor or a dentist. They may have to comply with certain regulations such as the one I mentioned. Very often when we listen to the news on the radio one of the first things mentioned is that a bag was stolen from a doctor's car. The finder is advised to be beware of the contents. The same might apply if a doctor had a licence to use these things. Possibly some radio-active substance might be in his bag. We might find it necessary to make some regulation that in such a case there would be very plainly displayed a label warning the people of the great danger and telling them what to do in case they came across this substance. The ordinary person may not realise that throwing this substance into water does not get over the danger nor does throwing it into the fire get over the danger. The matter is an extremely complicated one, and I do not pretend to understand it. I know that burning does not get over the difficulty and in some cases even putting it under water does not avoid the danger. That is why it is so important that regulations should be made dealing with these substances. Especially should the people be warned in regard to handling, touching or disposing of these substances in an unconsidered manner. As far as doctors and dentists are concerned, they will automatically get a licence if they apply.
On the general principle, apart from the particular instance, if the Minister is going to provide that doctors and dentists can automatically get a licence, surely that is a very unnecessary clarification? If that is going to be the position theproper way to deal with it is to provide that anybody other than a doctor or a dentist cannot use it without a licence.
They will not have to apply for a licence.
The mere fact of their qualifications would ensure that they need not apply for a licence. I am not an expert as to what is or what is not a radio-active substance, but I am told by people who know more than I about the technical end that the effect of this regulation is that a person cannot have an X-ray apparatus without a licence.
A doctor or a dentist may have it.
Not under the Resolution as it is. Surely it is not necessary to cast the net so wide to include that type of apparatus. I think the net is cast much too wide in the framework of the section and the Money Resolution. It would be far better to restrict the framework of the section to what is, in fact, really dangerous and make provision in respect of that rather than throw in a general form of words which may cover—and probably will cover—not only dangerous substances but also harmless ones and thus cause a great deal of administrative difficulty. I am not an expert but that would seem to me to be the best way of dealing with it.
Does the amendment cover doctors and dentists?
Yes.
If a nursing home, hospital or other institution wants to get an apparatus, will they have to apply for a licence to the Custom House or the Minister?
Not if there is a doctor on the premises.
Let us hear the Minister.
If there is a radiologistattached to these institutions he will be automatically entitled to a licence.
The Minister will cover that? If there is a duly qualified person attached to a hospital there is no need to apply?
No.
What is the position in regard to a nurse who is carrying on practice as a masseuse and who requires to obtain any of these minor radium apparatuses such as infra-red lamps and therapy apparatus? Will she be entitled to get a licence?
Would not that question arise more properly on the section?
This Resolution is to provide money and to give power to charge licence fees.
I think that the matter would be quite relevant if raised on Section 54.
The purpose of the Financial Resolution is to provide money and to give power for charging a licence fee. A nurse carrying on practice as a masseuse, and a veterinary surgeon carrying on practice, may need this apparatus, and if they do, can we be told whether they will have to apply for a licence or not?
The Deputy will probably realise that this is a very big subject and one that will be growing in importance as time goes on. It is, therefore, considered necessary to deal with it by regulation, because I admit it will probably be necessary, as time goes on, to amend the regulation in view of the experience gained. If I am advised that certain apparatuses are harmless, then they will be excluded by regulation. I could not say offhand whether the infra-red lamp is harmless or not. If I am advised that it is it will be excluded.
The Minister understands that this is not a proposal for the issue of licences. This is a proposal to make charges. The Minister, as a result of our discussion, nowagrees that doctors and dentists will not be required to have licences and therefore they will not be required to pay fees for the use of these apparatuses. They are quite as much required, in many cases, for the work of veterinary surgeons as they are for the work done by doctors, masseurs, and masseuses. Why should the Minister at this stage be asking us to agree to a Financial Resolution to impose charges for the handling of certain substances and certain apparatuses when, under criticism here, he agrees that the greater part of the community who are going to use these will not be required now to apply for licences or to make any payments at all?
I suggest that what should first be fully envisaged is the type of regulation and control that is required. We should not approach the examination of that question in the piecemeal way in which we are being asked to approach it. The House should not be asked to pass a Financial Resolution for the imposition of charges and the collection of money in connection with the making of regulations when, as I say, the Minister himself now admits that he is prepared to waive the question of licences and of charges in relation to the greater part of the community dealing with these apparatuses. These are not things to be used simply by way of recreation as a wireless apparatus might be. These are apparatuses and substances that are required in connection with the carrying on of a very technical and important business.
The procedure is that I must get Financial Resolution passed before we can proceed to the Committee Stage and deal with licences.
Who are going to be charged the fees then?
Probably the distributors.
Are we to understand, then, that the Minister is going to charge the doctors by means of the fees which the distributors of the machines will have to pay? Is this a way of shifting the charge—thatwhile making the doctor bear the charge you appear to be shifting it off him?
It must be fairly obvious to any Deputy who looks at this in a reasonable way that the distributors of these substances some of which are not perhaps used in medicine at all must be kept under control. The reason is that they are dealing with extremely dangerous substances. There must be a register and they must be kept under control. What we say is that they must get a licence at a small fee. I do not know what it may be. That used to be the regular procedure in connection with all these things where you had to have regulations, especially for dangerous substances. I know that such procedure applies to dangerous drugs, among many other things. I do not see, therefore, why it should not apply here. As I have already pointed out, we must, according to the Standing Orders of the House, get the Financial Resolution passed before we can proceed to the Committee Stage of the Bill.
Does it not seem important to the Minister that he should, first of all, get clear as to what the problem is and how he is going to tackle it before he asks the House to pass this Financial Resolution? On the face of it, the Resolution was intended to provide additional money and to attach a licence fee for the use of these things. Now the Minister indicates that the fee is likely to be for the purpose of controlling distribution. Therefore, I suggest that it is likely to create a kind of corner or monopoly in distribution.
This is not a new idea at all. It was in the 1947 Act. This same idea was in the Bill approved by the Coalition Government. What appeared as Section 14 of that Bill, is exactly the same as what appears as a section of this Bill. Therefore, Deputy Mulcahy, as a member of that Government, must have approved of Section 14 of the 1950 Bill. Otherwise, it could not have been in the print of the Bill.
The Minister, when he came into the House, seemedto have a very confused idea of what the purpose of this was. Under discussion here, he has shifted his position very substantially, no doubt in a reasonable way by meeting the criticism of the House, because he now says that doctors and dentists will not be required either to pay a fee or to get a licence for the use of these things. The Minister, however, is not prepared to say that he will deal with vets. and with masseurs and masseuses in the same way as doctors and dentists. He now swings round on a point of control—that is control by distribution.
This is the control that we want.
The position at the moment is that masseurs and masseuses carrying on practice at present and using the infra-red lamp or the short-wave lamp, which are not dangerous apparatus, can do so without a licence. If this Resolution is passed they cannot do so without paying for a licence. Surely, the Minister must appreciate that that will inflict an injustice on those people who have been carrying out this treatment heretofore. Why should they have to pay a licence fee? Surely, fully qualified people, such as vets. and nurses, should not have to apply for a licence any more than doctors and dentists.
As I have said, if I am advised that the short-wave lamp or the infra-red lamp is harmless, then they will be excluded. In other words, there will be no regulation whatever.
I am telling the Minister that they are harmless.
I hope the Deputy is right in that.
The difficulty is that practically anything, if it is abused, is not harmless. We might find that the lamps used by masseurs and masseuses could, in certain circumstances, be deemed to be harmful. For example, one could burn oneself with an ordinary match. That does not mean that we should only allow qualified people to strike matches.
One can agree quite reasonably that an X-ray apparatus is a dangerous apparatus, as with it you can have an accident in a very brief space of time. With an infra-red ray lamp, if you lie under it you can burn yourself badly, but you cannot do it instantaneously. It is not in quite the same category as an X-ray machine.
Or if you apply it to a point of the body to which it should not be applied.
We asked the Minister the other night to discuss these things with us and to decide whether they were included or not in a particular instance. I agree that X-ray apparatus is capable of causing a sudden shock and death, but these other things are not—although, as Deputy Dockrell says, you can electrocute yourself with the ordinary E.S.B. in the house if you are not careful.
I move the following Financial Resolution, No. 4 on the Order Paper:—
That provision shall be made by statute for the making by the Minister for Health of regulations relating to the prohibition or control of the use in the destruction of rats and mice of substances containing live cultures of organisms pathogenic to man and providing for the imposition of certain charges.
This is a provision that has been in all the Acts for a long time back. There are certain vermicides which are sold for the destruction of vermin, such as rats and mice, and they contain viruses which may be source of danger to human beings. The power here will enable the Minister to regulate their use or prohibit their use except under conditions which he may specify. It will not interfere with many of the preparations used to destroy rats and mice but only those that contain the live culture of organisms. Everybody will agree that where you have a live bacillus actually in a poison of that kind it is dangerous, because a human being—a child especially—might take some part of it and it will cause diseasealmost immediately. It is very dangerous from that point of view and, therefore, the matter should be regulated.
Would the Minister say what is the necessity for making a charge in this case?
Again it is necessary to get people to register—the people distributing these substances—and to license them.
Is this in connection with various companies which go and lay poison for rats or mice around a house or premises?
I do not know whether we would go so far as to license those that handle these things. I would be inclined to think we would take only the manufacturers and distributors and make regulations referring to them, that they would have to deal with these things properly, have them properly labelled and give warning of the danger.
Then it is the sale of it. There are these highly skilled companies which go round and do these services I mentioned for payment.
I do not think we would be concerned with them. It is the distributors and the manufacturers.
I take it that the one the regulation is introduced for is the Liverpool Virus which is manufactured outside this country. The point is that it does not destroy the vermin at once and that by leaving it around it may set up an infection for human beings.
Yes, I think that is one.
These preparations are, I think, all manufactured outside this country.
I am not so sure. I think they are.
That is my information. Perhaps the Minister would find out from his advisers. Would it not be better to stop them coming in altogether? I think there have beencases of food poisoning, in the Samenalla group of food poisons, in a few isolated instances across the water. I think there is only one type of poison included. Would the Minister find out exactly how he is going to control this by licence? I am not clear on the point. As far as I know, anyone can import these various preparations into the country. Is the Minister going to have it imported through special agencies? There are only about half a dozen wholesale chemists in the country. Is the Minister intending that only these people can import, so that he will have control in that way; or is anyone allowed to import? Perhaps the Minister would give us some information.
I would not see any difficulty about who imports it, so long as the person gets a licence. That will automatically keep it down to the wholesale importers, as the ordinary chemist would not think it worth his while holding a licence for the amount of business he might do. I would be more concerned about the people being warned as to the consequences of leaving it lying around where children or others may get at it. I think that is the principal point we will have to deal with.
I still do not see what the Minister proposes to do. If you are imposing a licence condition, how is that going to control it? If the poison is dangerous, why not keep it out altogether?
We might do that, too.
There are plenty of rat poisons, none of them very successful, but some fairly so. There is no reason why this poison should come in at all; I do not say that imposing a charge to obtain a licence is going to safeguard the public. Would the Minister explain it more clearly?
It is done by getting the person to register. One of the conditions is that he will label his parcel properly, giving due warning and so on of the consequences of anyone touching it, and if he does not do thathe will lose the licence. We have power to prohibit any particular preparation when it is too dangerous and not so effective.
Does the Minister not agree that it is all manufactured outside this country?
I think so, so far as I know.
I suggest to the Minister that he should prevent that particular type of virus coming in. Then there would be no risk to the public and no need for any licence.
Under the present law it can be made here. We cannot prevent people manufacturing it if they want to do so.
I think a good deal of it is manufactured here.
I am not sure.
I think so.
This is a Resolution that proposes to collect money by way of some form of taxation and it is very unsatisfactory to approach the matter in the way in which we are asked by the Minister to approach it here. The Minister has not given us any idea as to the number or the type of person concerned. He says it will probably be paid by manufacturers and distributors, but we are not quite clear on that. He has not given us clearly to understand that. This Resolution is before us because the Minister desires the authority of the House to raise money and to raise it by way of licence fees. I think we are entitled to a clear description of the people who will have to pay these licence fees, the type of fees that are likely to be charged and the annual amount that it is expected will be raised by way of these fees. This is a taxation proposal.
Yes. That is why the Financial Resolution is necessary.
Yes.
The Minister has notclarified the position for us. As Deputy Mulcahy has suggested, how does he propose to put the licence on, who is going to get a licence to import, how is he going to control it, how much is this licence going to be and how is that going to prevent people getting disease from it, if it is in the country still? These are things I am not quite clear on.
The Deputy will have to realise that we are rather in the dark about some of these things, as we are legislating for the future. Any person may put, or attempt to put, a preparation on the market for the destruction of mice and rats and we may find on investigation that it contains a live culture. We then have to proceed by regulation, if the regulations do not cover the point in the meantime. First of all, we make the manufacturer register. We might then say, perhaps, that it must be distributed through a pharmaceutical chemist, in which case maybe a licence would not be necessary, or we might say it must be distributed through licenses. I do not know what way we may do that. We may not have to license distributors, especially if it goes through the pharmaceutical chemists, but these things have to be thought out. It is not a big problem, but obviously things may crop up that we cannot foresee at the moment. I do not believe there will ever be more than six or seven licences for these preparations, and I do not think the income from it, as far as the State is concerned, would exceed £20 in one year.
If it will not exceed £20, can we not do without the £20 and proceed in the normal way to let this develop and be controlled by regulation? The Minister makes the situation no more clear now, except that his last suggestion would appear to be that he proposes to control, through a small number of persons, the handling of these substances, so that it is more matter of control of some aspect of our commercial life by regulation than the collecting of money. It seems to me absurd to ask the House for financial authority to proceed in this way.
Why? I give my opinion that it may not be worth £20, but I cannot guarantee that. There may be several people going into the business.