There are three amendments being discussed together—the Ministerial amendment, amendment No. 1 by Deputy Dr. Browne and amendment No. a1 by Deputy Blowick to that amendment.
Poisons Bill, 1960: Committee Stage (Resumed).
The following amendment was moved on 9th February, 1961:
1. In page 3, to delete subsection (1) and to insert the following subsections, namely:
"(1) The Council shall consist of—
(a) two persons each of whom is a registered medical practitioner, has, for a period of not less than ten years before the date of his appointment as a member of the Council, been registered, or been entitled to be registered, in the Register of Medical Practitioners for Ireland and possesses an academic qualification which is higher than the minimum qualification required for such registration and is, in the opinion of the Minister, a desirable qualification as respects membership of the Council,
(b) five persons each of whom is a registered pharmaceutical chemist and has, for a period of not less than ten years before the date of his appointment as a member of the Council, been registered, or been entitled to be registered, in the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists for Ireland,
(c) one persons who is a registered dentist and has, for a period of not less than ten years before the date of his appointment as a member of the Council, been registered, or been entitled to be registered, in the Register of Dentists for Ireland,
(d) two persons nominated by the Minister for Agriculture each of whom is a registered veterinary surgeon,
(e) one person with special knowledge and experience of the use of poisonous substances in agriculture nominated by the Minister for Agriculture,
(f) one person whose main occupation is farming nominated by the Minister for Agriculture, and
(g) three other persons (whether or not having any qualification referred to in the foregoing paragraphs).
(2) At least one of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall be a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland.
(3) (a) Each of three, but not more than three, of the persons referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be a person whose main occupation is either the carrying on of the business of pharmaceutical chemist or in employment as a pharmacist and at least two of those three persons shall be persons who, on the date of their appointment as members of the Council, are members of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland.
(b) At least one of the persons referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be a person whose main occupation is the teaching of pharmacy or a similar subject."
—(Minister for Health.)
Debate resumed on amendment a.1. thereto:
In subsection (1) (e) to delete "one person" and substitute "two persons", in subsection (1) (f) to delete "one person" and substitute "three persons" and to delete paragraph (g).—(Deputy Blowick).
Deputy Blowick's amendment is an amendment to an amendment.
Yes, and also Deputy Dr. Browne's.
What do you want to do?
I should like——
You are not "You." You are the Minister.
I must say it must be the beauty of my countenance which caused the Leader of the Opposition to have his eyes on me.
No. He is talking to the Chair. He is orderly, unlike you.
I had better start the ball rolling. This is the problem of adequate representation for interested parties on a council to be set up under this Bill. Ordinarily, this Bill might be expressed to be designed primarily, if not exclusively, for the control of dangerous drugs and the protection of human beings in danger of addiction or improvident medication but it is sought under the terms of the Bill to extend those provisions to veterinary medicines and agricultural preparations such as poisonous substances.
In the light of that, one must look at the constitution of the council. You have five persons representing the Pharmaceutical Society; two persons representing the medical profession; one person representing the dentists but, when you come to the representatives of agriculture, who are going to be vitally affected or could be vitally affected by the provisions of this Bill, one finds there is only one person to represent farming and one person versed in the use of poisonous substances in agriculture. Two persons are to be nominated by the veterinary profession. Now we strenuously object to that form of representation because we believe that there should be more than one person whose main occupation is farming nominated by the Minister for Agriculture.
As Deputy Blowick's amendment stands, it is calculated to alter paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Section 4 from one to two persons. That would make two persons with a special knowledge and experience of the use of poisonous substances in agriculture. I think, on the whole, two would be better, but on that I am not prepared to make an issue on principle. When we come to paragraph (f), Deputy Blowick's amendment is designed to increase the number of persons representative of farming from one to three, and I urge upon the Minister strenuously to accept this amendment. I urge it because I want to retain the confidence of the farming community in this council, and they are very apprehensive of it. I want to urge the figure 3 upon him because I think experience will prove that it will often be very difficult to get two of the three to be present and it is not a desirable thing to have one representative of a large interest like farming because, attending meetings of a body of this character, it is of great assistance if he has somebody with whom he can take counsel in determining the proper attitude to be adopted in regard to any matter that comes up for consideration.
Deputy Blowick's amendment goes on to delete paragraph (3). So far as we are concerned, we are indifferent as to that proposal. I do not know why he thinks the three other persons are desirable. If the Minister wishes to add them to the body, no serious objection need be raised against their addition. Our position, therefore, can be reduced to this, and the reduction is made with the desire to go half-way to meet the Minister's original proposal: I would be quite prepared to accept in paragraph (e) one person with special knowledge and experience of poisonous substances; in paragraph (f) three persons whose main occupation is farming nominated by the Minister for Agriculture; and allow paragraph (g) to stand or fall, as the Minister prefers.
I want to press this strongly on the Minister. We have an exactly similar situation boiling up in connection with the Pigs and Bacon Bill. There the Minister for Agriculture, I think, unwisely, gave way to pressure to allow three members of that board to represent curing, whereas there are only two members to represent producers. Whether or not that will have any effect on the deliberations of that board, it makes the board suspect from the very word "go". I want to tell the Minister that I am perfectly certain that if he refuses the farming community more than one person, this board will be regarded as a kind of instrument of persecution. The Minister may naturally inquire why the farming community should be so intimately interested in the administration of poisons legislation. The answer is that poisons as interpreted by this Bill extend almost to the whole range of pharmaceutical drugs as well as to spraying materials and similar commodities.
Most farmers, will, I think, readily acknowledge the necessity for close surveillance of poisonous spraying so that those who use them may be adequately warned of the precautions requisite to take, but an entirely new principle is being introduced in this Bill. We are trying to carry over from the established attitude of the Legislature to the uncontrolled distribution of therapeutic drugs for human beings that same principle into veterinary treatment. There is no analogy. If I want recklessly to kill my pig, my sheep, my cow or my bullock by the improvident administration of drugs rather than pay the vet a guinea to come and see the animal, that seems to me to be my business and nobody else's. To impose upon the farmer, in modern conditions, the obligation of summoning a vet in respect of every minor trouble which may manifest itself among his livestock is to impose upon him a burden which is quite ridiculous and which will result in the farmer being effectively prevented from providing therapeutic treatment for his livestock altogether.
It is common knowledge that with antibiotics, and a variety of other preparations, a great deal can be done in the way of veterinary therapeutics by any intelligent farmer. The use of penicillin for the control of mastitis is a daily experience of dairy farmers everywhere. The use of antibiotics for the control of other systemic infections is quite common practice. I will not weary the House with a list of the veterinary drugs which are now regularly administered by farmers to their livestock. It could become an intolerable abuse if, at the instance of the medical, veterinary or pharmaceutical professions, access to these drugs by farmers was unreasonably limited. Unless farmers are, therefore, adequately represented on this board, there will be a constant bone of contention and a sense of grievance abroad.
For these reasons, I urge on the Minister strongly either to accept this amendment or to announce his intention of accepting another amendment in the name of Deputy O'Higgins, an amendment designed to remove from the ambit of this Bill veterinary medicine altogether. Either approach will be acceptable. The idea would be for the Minister to accept both Deputy Blowick's amendment and Deputy O'Higgins's amendment. That, in our judgment, would be the wise thing to do.
I think there is some misunderstanding on the part of those responsible for these amendments as to the real purpose of the Bill. This Bill is designed to regulate the sale and distribution of poisons for the protection of individual citizens. It is for the protection of human life that we are proposing to replace the existing legislation which had that purpose but which, by reason of the development of new therapeutic substances, has now become obsolete.
Let us consider what is the machinery we are proposing to replace. Formerly the question of whether a thing was or was not a poisonous substance was left to the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland in the first place. That College came to a decision on the matter without having any consultations with farmers or with persons directly representing the agricultural industry. They may—I do not know —have consulted the Minister for Agriculture in relation to these matters but the final word of advice lay with the Royal College of Physicians.
Oh, no. It lay with the Minister.
Oh yes; the final advice was with the College. We could not classify a substance as a poison, unless they agreed. We had to consult them and they were the final arbiters. That is the situation which exists today and which we are proposing to rectify. In order that the Minister may be guided by persons of experience on the various aspects of this matter, I am proposing to establish a council which, I hope, will pool the knowledge and wisdom which they have and devote it to the consideration of regulations which the Minister for Health proposes to make. These regulations do not go to that council as a proposal for legislation. They are not to be discussed there by the various persons concerned on the basis that they have franchise to represent a special interest. They are generally to be considered by them as men of wisdom, much as you have a Cabinet who will discuss the various aspect of a matter and come to a common decision on what they think is right and say: "We think your regulation, will such and such a modification, will meet the case and will not impose undue hardship on any person".
The basis of the amendment is that this is the sort of representative body in which matters will be decided by votes. Otherwise, why all the emphasis upon the fact that there are so many persons qualified as pharmacists, why all the emphasis upon persons qualified as medical practitioners and so on? Why the attempt made to say that the farming interest—because interest is the one note which runs throughout the speeches I have heard and the articles I have read—is not fully represented? There is nothing to prevent the Minister for Health nominating a member of the farming community as one of his three nominees.
That is all you have to say.
One or two farmers who know their business and are able to make their case can convince their colleagues on the council that a proposed regulation should be modified in a certain way to meet the requirements of the agricultural industry and that would be much more effective than having seven persons representing agriculture who, under Deputy Blowick's amendment, would be nominated as of right to the council. This Poisons Bill is designed to protect people, human beings, from the use or misuse of poisons in any form, whether such poisons are intended for the therapeutic treatment of human beings or the therapeutic treatment of animals.
That is the purpose of the Bill. The only reason the Minister for Agriculture comes in at all is that there is a wide range of therapeutic substances being used in the treatment of animals and agriculture generally, which, if misused, would lead to the loss of human life or create serious problems for the Minister for Health. Therefore, the Minister for Agriculture, having regard to that fact, has been given the right to nominate persons to this council and there is an obligation imposed on it to consider the use of these poisonous substances in agriculture. Let us not think that we are not dealing with a real problem here because there are substances used in agriculture which are displacing long and well established remedies and these substances can be very dangerous not merely to the ultimate consumer of the agricultural product but dangerous to the people who use them as agriculturists. The purpose of the regulations to be made by the Minister for Health, after consultation with the council, is to ensure that these articles are not misused, that they are used safely and in a proper manner so that it will not just be an animal that may die but that no human being will die or be made ill because of the misuse of them That is the whole purpose of this council and when you come to think of that, it is absurd that in relation to a council set up to safeguard the life and health of human beings, we should accept the purpose behind the amendment to which Deputy Blowick gives his name, that in that council, established for the protection of human life, there should be seven persons representing the livestock industry in this country and only eight persons representing the whole people of Ireland.
Three persons.
That is what this proposal would amount to. Not only does he propose to nominate these three, but he proposes to deprive the Minister for Health of the power to nominate three persons representing the community as a whole.
I am not responsible for that amendment. I am sorry to see that the Leader of the Opposition has walked himself into supporting it. If he had given some consideration to it, I do not think he would have done so. However, Deputy Dillon made one good point in support of a further change in the personnel of the council, as it is now proposed in my amendment, that is, that it might happen that this person nominated by the Minister for Agriculture as a person whose main occupation is farming might not be able to attend on all occasions. I would be quite prepared to meet that situation by agreeing to have two persons whose main occupation is farming nominated by the Minister for Agriculture. But that is as far as I am prepared to go.
I am not saying that as a concession to the proposition that the council should represent interests merely. But I am yielding to the weight of the argument Deputy Dillon has made that if the power of nomination of the Minister for Agriculture is confined to one person, that one person may not be able to attend on all occasions and, therefore, the council may be without the advice of a person considered by the Minister for Agriculture to be competent to deal with the draft regulations which may come before the council and to deal with the effect they may have upon agricultural procedures to the extent that they may make them more inconvenient or more onerous. I think that is a fair way of meeting the case. If the Leader of the Opposition will agree to that, I am prepared to make that concession.
Why does the Minister always try to boil things up into passionate and acrimonious argument? When you boil down all this discussion between the pair of us, there is a difference of one farmer. When you boil down all the Minister has said with such passion, all that is between us is one person under paragraph (f). As I said, looking at Deputy Blowick's amendment, I felt paragraph (e) was not essential or important. I would not press that on the Minister. But I thought the amendment in paragraph (f) was wise and necessary. As far as the deletion of paragraph (g) was concerned, I did not attach any importance to it and I thought it would be perfectly reasonable for the Minister to retain it.
As I said on the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Bill, it might suit my hand much better to let you stumble into this folly. When you are dealing with the agricultural community you can very often purchase its goodwill by a gesture; but if you fail to make that gesture, you create an atmosphere of suspicion and doubt which renders them antagonistic to the whole plan. The way they read this Bill is this. They will say: "You have five chemists; you have two doctors, one dentist and"—as the Bill originally read—"you have one farmer." All I want to say to them, in order that the body may function satisfactorily, is: "There are three farmers and there is, in addition to that, a person whose primary qualification is that he knows something about the use of agricultural substances, that is, poisonous sprays and analogous preparations. If you feel that has not adequately covered you, you can go to the Minister for Health and ask him to use one of his nominations under paragraph (g) to repair any deficiency that exists."
All that is outstanding between the Minister and myself is one farmer. If he gives way and puts on two farmers, I think he has made some gesture. But I am warning him he is purchasing for himself unnecessarily suspicion and illwill; whereas if he put on three farmers he would be in a position to say: "I accept the importance and great interest of the farming community in this matter," while he may feel in his own mind that when they sit down and examine the questions that will be submitted to this council, they will discover there is nothing very exciting here at all. But I urge on the Minister to look at it from the point of view of the farming community. Their primary reaction is: "There are 350,000 of us buying these drugs. We are the people who use them. We are the people most profoundly affected by any restriction that may be put upon their use. We are the people who will have to pay the vets' fees if we are excluded from access to these drugs unless furnished with a prescription from a veterinary surgeon. There are only to be two of us, but there are five pharmaceutical chemists."
Surely that is a reasonable attitude bearing in mind the ordinary workings of human nature? It irritates me when the Minister tries to make a case that the existing position is that the Royal College of Physicians is the determining body. That is not true. The existing position is that the Minister is the determining authority. The Minister makes the order and the Royal College of Physicians is the body which, by tradition, advises him. Is that not so?
The College not only advise but they move for amendments.
They may move, but they cannot compel. The final authority is the Minister. If the Minister receives a recommendation which he regards as unreasonable, to add a drug to the list of poisonous drugs, he has the right to say: "No, I will not. That is carrying things too far." Let us view this thing with reason. There is a tendency to restrict more and more access to these therapeutic substances except through the medium of the doctor and the veterinary surgeon. There is also a tendency on the part of the pharmaceutical chemists to prohibit more and more the sale of certain therapeutic substances by persons other than pharmaceutical chemists. All these factors are present to the mind of the agricultural community. They require a certain measure of reassurance.
I would be prepared to accept the proposal by the Minister to leave paragraph (e) as it is—that is to leave one person—to leave paragraph (g) as it is, if he wants to, provided he substitutes the figure "3" for the figure "1" in paragraph (f). If the Minister is prepared to do that, I think every substantial objection will be overcome; but if he is not, I am afraid we cannot accept the proposed constitution of the council in its present form.
I must say at the outset that I believe Deputy Dillon to be more or less unreasonable on this matter. I shall at first refer to the end of his speech where he states that the tendency at the present time is to allow the purchase of an article only by prescription from a veterinary surgeon in the case of veterinary goods. I should like to point out at the very beginning that the number of prescriptions issued by veterinary surgeons during the past twelve months was very limited. I am told on the most reliable authority that the students at the Veterinary College are instructed not to issue prescriptions to farmers when they attend farmers' beasts.
In other words, the veterinary surgeons at the present time bring a lot of suspicion on themselves because of their rôle as vendors of medicines and drugs. I read the speech made by Deputy Blowick when introducing his amendments and I gathered from it, and from a very few farmers I met, that his reading of the Bill as introduced was a very casual one. I know that a few farmers, having read the Bill, were fearful that rights which they had held and exercised over a number of years were likely to be taken from them and handed over by vote of the council, or by a decision or recommendation of the council, to veterinary practitioners. I rather think that if they had read the Bill carefully they would see there is nothing in it which provides that any rights would be taken away from the farmers, and I should like to stress what the Minister said here—that the personnel of the council, while belonging to certain vocations, are not, on the whole, to be taken as representing these vocations but are selected for the purpose of giving the Minister advice which would be worth while and which he would be able to act upon.
It is right, as Deputy Dillon has done, to run down through the personnel specifically mentioned for membership of the council. There are two doctors and a dentist. I do not think anybody would disagree with the nomination of such persons. There are five pharmacists. It might be necessary for some of the lay members of the House to know what right—and I mean right in actual fact—the pharmacists have to such a great number of representatives on this council of fifteen. The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland and the pharmaceutical chemists of Ireland have for many years been the custodians of the poison laws in this country. They have had the duty of instructing students in the poison laws, the duty of examining students, and no student of the College of Pharmacy can get his final certificate without passing a very strict examination on the poison laws.
All this training, apart from these facts, makes the student an ideal person to handle drugs and to sell drugs and poisons to people throughout the country. I maintain that the fact there is such a very limited number of fatalities from poisons in this country, whether deliberate or accidental, is in the main due to the great care which the pharmacists exercise in the handling and the storing of these drugs. I should also mention that it is the duty of the Pharmaceutical Society to enforce the poison laws in the country. The Society has to send its inspectors throughout the country to investigate complaints or cases where they have knowledge of poisons being sold by people who should not be selling them. They have also the duty of prosecuting in the courts.
All these duties are carried out without the help of any Government subvention. They get no fee even for their college. All the fees are met by the students or as voluntary subscriptions by the Society members. Accordingly, representation of five from that body on a council dealing with poisons is just the very minimum. I should have thought that even greater representation would be justified but the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland are quite satisfied that the representation here is adequate.
There is provision for two veterinary surgeons on the council. At the beginning I wondered why we should have two veterinary surgeons on a poisons council. I should like to stress that the poison laws are for the protection of human beings. A farmer, if he wishes, may shoot any animal he has or poison any animal he has, provided the chemist sells him the poison with which to do it. A man may treat any animal. After all, if he has the right to destroy a beast, he should also be allowed to treat it provided his treatment does not create a danger to other people's property in any other part of the country or that he is not cruel to the animal. I came to the conclusion that since the veterinary surgeons have such an intimate association with the farming community they should be given adequate representation on the council.
We have provision on the council for a farmer with specialised knowledge of veterinary poisons. That is another excellent decision. There is provision also for a person who will directly represent the farming community on the council. In this connection I should like to repeat what Deputy Blowick said. He suggested that there were 380,000 farmers in the country. Deputy Dillon said recently there were only 350,000.
The Deputy should know he has chased a good many of them out of the country in the past few years.
The Deputy is having his "crack" and he is welcome to it. Deputy Blowick continued that in the farms between Ballinrobe and Galway there were so many sheep that, if they suffered from pulpy kidney, all the veterinary surgeons in Ireland would not be sufficient to give them treatment. Any recommendation made by Comhairle na Nimheanna is subject to the approval of the Minister and will not be effective until the Minister makes the order. Is it likely, is it conceivable, that a Minister for Agriculture, a Minister representing the agricultural community, the present Minister or any future Minister, would cause trouble and great expense to 350,000 farmers here in order that 500 veterinary surgeons might benefit? It is fantastic to imagine that such a position could occur.
Having the Minister as the final arbiter in this case the farmers have a representative who is worth a dozen persons on Comhairle na Nimheanna. A Minister, even Deputy Dillon if he were Minister, would not agree to a recommendation from Comhairle na Nimheanna that it was only through the vets that pulpy kidney vaccine or blackleg vaccine or a thousand other things could be distributed.
The Minister would not have the power.
Until he makes the order.
The Minister for Health makes the order.
That is not my place.
Until the order is made.
Who makes the order?
I understand that it is the Minister for Agriculture. I may be wrong in that. However, that is the way I look upon it.
Section 15.
That relates only to restriction on sales.
Section 15.
That relates to certain categories.
This is purely a poisons measure. The Minister also has power to nominate three persons, or perhaps, two, on account of the gesture he has made to the Leader of the Opposition. They may be drawn from any vocation and I think he will exercise this power to ensure that there will be on the council persons whose advice and knowledge will make the council a useful one.
I would ask Deputy Blowick, if he were here, to accept the Minister's gesture and to withdraw his amendment. I feel that the farming community have nothing whatever to fear under this measure. I cannot discuss Section 15 on this section but I would say that nothing in Section 15 relates to the sale of any poison or any article. The word "sale" is not mentioned in the section. There are restrictive measures in it in certain ways but, so far as the sale of poisons or poisonous substances is concerned, the chemist has been entitled up to the present and will be entitled when this Bill is law to sell anything which he has been selling in the past to the farmers unless the council decide that the user of it would be a danger to the farmer or some person belonging to him.
Deputy Loughman mentioned that this is purely a poisons measure. It is poisonous to the farming community who see that they have been ignored in the proposal to give five places to chemists and one to a practical farmer. This proposal ignores the importance of agriculture. That is the reason the Leader of the Opposition has spoken so vigorously against the proposal.
It is intended to control the sale and distribution of poisonous substances, but when a council is set up and five chemists are appointed to it we are really establishing a vested interest because they will have a colossal influence in any decisions that are made in relation to sale and distribution, and that is the important aspect of this Bill.
Without this Bill at all, we have all these powers.
If so, why is the Bill being brought in?
Deputy Rooney ought to read the Second Reading speech. He ought to know what he is talking about.
I hope I do. In my view the effect of it will be that a vested interest will be created. In this House we should be very careful that we do not introduce legislation which will have the effect of creating a vested interest even if that were not intended. If there is any evidence of the danger of a vested interest being established, this is the place for us to take positive action to ensure that that will not happen and to ensure that the community will not be subjected to any kind of vested interest.
The agricultural community have been brushed aside in this proposal. The scientific use of poisonous substances in agriculture is expanding and farmers are becoming more and more associated with the use of these substances. For that reason they should have reasonable representation on the council. I am not suggesting that they should have anything like a majority or more influence than they ought to have on the council. A very reasonable suggestion was made when the Leader of the Opposition said that the farmers ought to have at least three.
A high proportion of the business of any chemist, particularly in a rural area, is the sale of drugs and medicines associated with agriculture. Farmers are almost the best customers of chemists in rural areas. Any chemist in the country will bear that out. Anyone who goes into a chemist's shop at the moment can see the advertisements encouraging farmers to experiment with medicines, drugs and inventions designed to improve the farming economy.
I think Deputy Loughman will agree that the chemist cannot teach farmers their own business. Farmers are engaged in a practical way in the management of their farms, their livestock, the growing of crops, the killing of weeds and various activities which may necessitate the use of poisonous substances. Apparently, the protest from the N.F.A. has been ignored. No effort had been made by the Minister to meet them on this matter.
Does the Deputy know what the N.F.A. said? Does he know what they asked?
Of course, he does.
Let him repeat it then, because I would hate to think the Deputy was wilfully misleading the House.
If the Minister wants to know about it he ought to study the remarks that they have made on this matter and the points which they have made in relation to it. They are a very influential body and it has been necessary for them to make positive statements in relation to what they consider ought to be done concerning this matter.
Certain proposals have been made in the House and the Minister, apparently, is not prepared to accede to them. The point is that we are setting up a group, on which there will be five chemists, who will make decisions in relation to the sale and distribution of drugs and medicines for sheep, cattle, pigs, horses and other farm animals. In addition to that they will be making decisions in relation to the sale of various poisonous substances for spreading on crops, weed killing and even soil treatment.
The Minister will agree that chemists could not be expected to have a practical knowledge of these aspects of agriculture, any more than a farmer could go into a chemist shop and teach the chemist his business. The farmer in the management of his farm knows what his problem is and what he wants when he goes into the chemist shop. He recognises the various illnesses amongst the animals on his farm; he knows the times at which weeds spread, and he knows more about the soil on his farm than the local chemist could be expected to know. What I am objecting to is the creation of an influential vested interest which may make it more difficult for the ordinary farmer to obtain various substances which can be used on his farm for its improvement and for the betterment of our agricultural economy.
One may always expect, when Deputy Rooney rises to deal with any subject, no matter how important it may be from the point of view of the general welfare of the community, to have a political red herring drawn across the path. Deputy Rooney, in the course of the remarks he has made, said I was ignoring the N.F.A. I asked him to give to the House the evidence upon which he made that statement and I asked him to tell the House what the N.F.A. had to say about this Bill.
The Minister wanted an argument.
The Deputy sidled away crabwise from that request. Here is what the N.F.A. had to say about the Bill. Dealing with Section 15 they said:
The Association feels that these amendments are a considerable step in the right direction.
Go on.
On Section 14——
On a point of order, when the Minister proceeds to quote a document he should not quote one half-sentence in it and not quote the remainder. He has deliberately omitted from the circular from which he has quoted the words: "but they still fall far short of the minimum protection necessary to safeguard the farmers' interests." He deliberately omitted that.
I am dealing with only one point and that is the statement made by Deputy Rooney that the Minister had disregarded the N.F.A., and I am not going to weary the House reading the whole of this document.
I shall.
I am quite certain Deputy T.F. O'Higgins will because apparently the Opposition have determined to proceed on this basis——
Just as the Minister is determined to misrepresent the N.F.A.
——that the taking of precautions to ensure that poisons will not be wilfully or inadvertently misused to the detriment of human life and human health is not the concern of this House.
Just as the Minister is wilfully misrepresenting the N.F.A.
It is quite clear, after the speech of Deputy Rooney, that this measure is not to be discussed as a matter affecting the community as a whole but only as an excuse to try to create some political prejudice——
There is no excuse necessary with the Minister.
——by working upon the fears of the farmers. The farmers are not as green as that, as any of the Deputies who engaged in the economic war ought to know. You were not able to mislead them in 1934 and you will not be able to mislead them in 1961.
The Minister did his best in Sligo-Leitrim, and he failed.
I do not want to get into Sligo-Leitrim.
I am not surprised.
You got out of it quickly enough.
I do not think the Opposition have so much to plume themselves upon. That was always a Fine Gael constituency; yet you lost votes and we gained.
You did not. Have some regard for the truth, if that is not too much to ask.
The Deputy should be quiet.
I will wait until he lapses into silence. What does the N.F.A. ask instead of this section which we are now debating? I do not think Deputy Rooney himself knows— that paragraph (f) should read: "Two persons whose main occupation is farming nominated by the Minister for Agriculture." I did not see much point in that request as baldly made. However, Deputy Dillion did make the convincing point that in the event that the person nominated by the Minister for Agriculture as a person whose main occupation is farming might not be able to attend, there ought to be some other person present whom the Minister for Agriculture had designated to put the farmers' point of view in the councils of the board. Therefore, as I said, having heard that argument— and it was one that did not occur to myself—that this was a case which might occur and which should reasonably be met, I said I would prefer to increase the number of persons appointed under paragraph (f) from one to two.
Deputy Rooney talked about a vested interest. Deputy Dillon and myself were at cross-purposes when we were speaking about the existing situation. The Deputy seems to think that as the law now stands it is the Minister for Health who takes the initiative in this matter.
No.
The Minister for Health——
Makes the order.
——gives the final approval, and I said in the course of the dialogue between the Deputy and myself that it is the College of Physicians which has the power of initiation, and that is the existing situation.
The Minister makes the order.
No. The Minister does not even make the order, though the order would probably be made with the Minister as a consenting party. The position at the moment is that the several articles mentioned in the Schedule to this Bill include a wide range of substances which have been designated by an Act of the British Parliament. Of course Deputy Rooney does not mind that. He thinks what the British did is all right and therefore there is no need to interfere as I am interfering in this case.
To return to the text of the Act:
... which several articles mentioned in the Schedule to this Act annexed shall be deemed to be poisons within the meaning of the Act and the King's and Queen's College of Physicians in Ireland may from time to time by resolution declare that any article other than those mentioned in the said Schedule and in such resolution named ought to be deemed to be a poison within the meaning of the Act and thereupon the said College should present the said resolution for the approval of the Privy Council——
Which is the Minister for Health now?
No, it happens to be the Government. In any event, the position at the moment is that there is a body on which there is not any farmer per se, not even a person nominated by the Minister for Agriculture, and they can deal with all this range of questions if they so desire. One might think it outside their competence to administer that Act in the spirit in which it was intended.
Let me return to what I said at the beginning. That Act was passed for the protection of the citizens of Ireland. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that whoever uses poisonous substances for whatever purpose, whether it be for agriculture or otherwise, they will be used in such a way that first, they cannot be wilfully misused to take human life—that is the fundamental importance of this Bill—and, secondly, that they cannot be inadvertently misused to injure either the user or some other person into whose hands a commodity in the production of which they may be used will fall and cause him to suffer in health or perhaps lose his life. That is the purpose of this Bill.
Am I to go along and say that Deputy Rooney, for instance, considers it much more important to facilitate farmers in destroying weeds than to ensure that the poisonous substances which the farmer uses to destroy weeds will not either wilfully or inadvertently be misused to the detriment of human life? Are we to say that Deputy Rooney, speaking for the Fine Gael Party, places higher value upon a cow or a sheep than he does upon a human being?
I am glad that the Minister did not add calves.
I shall add calves.
You were good at slitting their throats.
The Deputy is enjoying the fruits of the years 1932-1937. When he was Minister for Finance he did not have to mulct the people to the extent of £5 million to pay it over to Great Britain.
He did not have to slit calves' throats.
Deputy Sweetman and Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, who now sit in Opposition, will have to accept this as a solid historical fact that whatever merits were on one side or the other in that dispute the people of Ireland passed judgment on those who were then endeavouring to thwart the Government from 1932 to 1939.
Tripe.
That is an historical fact and the Deputy and his Party were in the wilderness for half a generation because of the wrongheaded approach which they took to this great national question.
Tripe.
I do not want to go back on that.
Why not go back to the Civil War as the Minister did in Sligo?
I shall get back to Deputy Rooney, because Deputy Rooney repeated here the sort of thing he was saying down in Sligo——
What about what the Minister said?
——about the Poisons Bill. I am just warning Deputy Rooney that that type of political claptrap can be carried too far, that the farmers are not just the simpletons Deputy Rooney thinks they are and that when it is pointed out to them, they will realise that the main purpose of this Bill is to try to provide safeguards against the misuse of poisons, to regulate the sale of them so that any person cannot go in and buy a noxious substance and use it to destroy some person with whom he is at enmity; that the sale of these substances——
Let me give the Minister an assurance that, much as I might like to use them in his case, I shall not do so.
——has to be regulated and controlled. It is a great pity that the Deputy lunched so well today. Otherwise, I might be able to discuss this without so much interruption.
The Deputy would like the Minister to come to the Bill.
I am coming to the Bill.
To the amendments, and not to misrepresent the N.F.A. as the Minister did a few minutes ago.
Deputy Rooney, like his Leader, Deputy Dillon, referred to the fact that there were five persons who were registered pharmaceutical chemists, that is to say, had qualifications in pharmacy, on the Board. There are, or will be, if my amendment passes, but neither Deputy Rooney nor Deputy Dillon referred to the reservation which appears in subsection (3) of the amendment and it is a very important one because while we may talk here about five pharmaceutical chemists what Deputy Dillon and Deputy Rooney have been concerned to do is to build up a picture in the minds of the farming community of the man in a market town who keeps a chemist's shop and who sells drugs and other chemical substances. It is true that they are to be represented on this council and represented for the reason which Deputy Loughman referred to, that is, that those who have been engaged for, I think, 76 years or over three-quarters of a century, in the sale of poisonous substances under strict statutory regulations will have a great deal of knowledge and experience to bring to the discussions of the council and to consideration of the regulations which the Minister is bound to submit to them.
Each of three people out of the 25 shall be a person whose main occupation is either the carrying on of the business of pharmaceutical chemist or in employment as a pharmacist and at least two of those three persons shall be persons who, on the date of their appointment as members of the council, are members of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland. While there must be five persons who have pharmaceutical qualifications, such qualifications as will entitle them to be registered as pharmaceutical chemists, only three of them can be actually actively engaged in the distribution by sale of pharmaceutical substances.
Out of 25, the Minister said?
I am sorry, I should have said out of 15.
I wanted to be sure.
Can the Deputy not have manners? This is a deliberative assembly; it is not the Literary and Historical Debating Society in University College. The Deputy wants to create disorder by keeping his tongue running in front of his mind. If we are to try to address ourselves to a serious proposal——
Why not do so?
The Minister.
I shall do so as soon as I am permitted by Deputy Sweetman to continue my speech on this matter. I shall keep to the point, I hope. There are three persons, as I pointed out, and not more than three, who can be actively engaged in the sale and distribution of pharmaceutical substances. That gives a very different impression from that which Deputy Rooney and Deputy Dillon sought to convey to the House, and of course, through the House to the agricultural community. A fourth of these five shall be a person whose main occupation is the teaching of pharmacy or a similar subject. A fifth, who must be a pharmaceutical chemist, I am entitled to appoint, so to speak, at large from either the manufacturing chemical industry or from the medical profession, if that should appear to me to be warranted. Nevertheless, he has to be a person who is registered as a pharmaceutical chemist and who for a period of not less than 10 years before the date of his appointment as a member of the Council had been entitled to be registered in the Register of the Pharmaceutical Chemists for Ireland. That is quite a different picture from that presented to the House by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Rooney.
There has been a lot of talk about the representation of this interest or that interest. Speaking on the last occasion I said that if I thought that this council was going to be a battleground for conflicting interests I would not establish it. That is not the purpose of the council. The purpose of the council is to consider judiciously and impartially the proposals which the Minister submits to them and if they find nothing to improve upon in them—which I think may be unlikely—to give them their full endorsement.
If any member of it feels that the regulations should be modified in any way then it is the duty of the council to discuss that proposed modification and to come to a common agreement upon it as to whether it should be made or accepted in whole, or whether there should be a modification of that proposed modification. If I thought, and I am sure that any successor of mine will have the same view when he comes to consider the question, that the drafts of these regulations were to be discussed and debated as if they were political issues, and that they were to be decided by a vote of the majority of the council, then I would think the council would be useless for the purpose of the Minister for Health, because that is not what he wants.
The Minister administering this Act has to feel confident that whatever regulation he makes is made not for the benefit of this particular interest or that, but made for the benefit of the community as a whole. It is to take the questions involved out of the region of politics and to have these questions considered and settled, not by political methods and not by voting on this or that proposal but by pooling the wisdom and experience of the members of the council; so that they will be able to return to the Minister his proposed regulation feeling that, having regard to all the aspects of the question, this is the right type of regulation to make. This is what I have in mind in putting this proposal to the House.
So far as the farmers are concerned, Deputy Loughman has pointed out that the great safeguard which they have is that no Minister for Agriculture is going to lose sight of their interests in respect of any regulation that may be made, that he is not going to do anything, even if only as a politician, that would be detrimental to the interests of the farmers as a whole. In the first instance, the Minister for Agriculture is responsible to the House but it is to the farmers that ultimately he is responsible. Therefore, we may be perfectly certain that if this council were to act in a wrongheaded way and make a proposal to the Minister which he felt would be detrimental to the interests of the agricultural community, unreasonably detrimental without any justification, no Minister for Agriculture would make a regulation of that type. That, of course, is the position in which the Minister for Health would be in relation to the community as a whole.
Over and above that there is another safeguard provided in Section 18 of the Bill, that all regulations which are made by the Minister must be laid before the House and, of course, those who appear to be so zealous about representing the interests of the farming community will have an opportunity of discussing those regulations. I may not be present to discuss it, but I will make a bet that when the first regulation comes before the House Deputy Rooney will not even know about it.
I am glad that the Minister admits that Deputy Rooney will be here and that he will not.
Well, you see, I am getting on and Deputy Rooney is a young man, though when I have to listen to the sort of thing that comes in an interminable stream from Deputy Sweetman I feel the lure of the hereafter becomes very strong.
I shall not dissuade the Minister from it.
In any event, not only does the regulation have to be laid before the House but if the Minister, to deal with an emergency, has to make a regulation without consulting the council, the regulation has to have that fact stated upon its face so the House is then in a position to discuss any regulation which the Minister makes without consulation, in the full knowledge that anything it may do will not reflect on the council. That is the situation under the Bill and, having regard to the fact that the Bill is designed for the protection of human life, we should drop this pretext that the Bill is in any way designed to injure or incommode the farmers of Ireland. Having had this long discussion, I hope we shall be able to proceed.
The Minister referred to the Act which at present governs the sale of poisons, the Sale of Poisons (Ireland) Act, 1870. He pointed out that, under present legislation, the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland is the body which deals with the definition of poisons. That is perfectly true. The Sale of Poisons (Ireland) Act, 1870, was passed 92 years ago. One of the reasons this legislation is necessary is that the list of poisons that were known and referred to in that Act is out of date and completely out of touch with scientific development since then. It is merely a debating point by the Minister to suggest that the machinery under this matter is dealt with by the Royal College of Physicians, which has no farmer representative. He is asking us to compare chalk with cheese because they are two different things. The Minister suggested that Deputy Rooney was misquoting the view of N.F.A.
I did not say "misquote". He charged me with ignoring the N.F.A. I asked him to tell the House what the N.F.A. asked.
The Minister purported to refer to the view the N.F.A. had given expression to. With all the documentation in front of him, I can only assume that the Minister did not take the trouble to read what the N.F.A. did say. The gloss he put upon it was quite contrary to the view they expressed. In their document, dated 1st March, 1961, they referred to the section we are discussing. Having dealt with the council and its formation, they say:
Farmers have a vital interest in the operation of this legislation which will clearly affect their capacity to safeguard the day to day health and wellbeing of their livestock. This interest can only be protected by giving them adequate representation on the council. No single voice in a council of 15 could represent adequately an interest of this magnitude.... Additional farmer representation in the council is necessary. This would not in any way be detrimental to the interest of the community at large since farmers, as individuals, have a common stake with all other citizens in the safeguarding of human life.
That is the view to which Deputy Rooney referred. He was precise in saying that the Minister's amendment ignored that point of view. I cannot understand why, in reply to Deputy Rooney, the Minister should misquote the document from the N.F.A.
Because he wanted a red herring and it was a pretty smelly one.
The Minister said the proposer of this amendment and the Deputies supporting it were apparently suggesting that in some way there would be balloting on such council, that matters would be decided by a vote, and so on. Certainly no such view was present to any of our minds. No Deputy would feel that a council should operate or be constituted to operate in that way. Even on the Minister's proposal, this council is intended to be representative of different minds and of different sections that can contribute to the advice that may be given to the Minister. Even the five pharmaceutical chemists in the Minister's proposals are to be drawn in a special way. One is to be a person concerned with the teaching of the poisons laws. Another is to be a person on the Council of the Pharmaceutical College. Others are to be chemists who have been engaged in the sale of poisons and dangerous drugs. So, in every way possible, the Minister seeks to get a representative cross-section in order that there should be available in the deliberations of the council different points of view. That does not mean it is expected the council will decide matters by a vote. They probably will not and probably it would not be desirable that they should.
What the Leader of the Opposition has said very effectively is that, with the tremendous development of all forms of chemical and therapeutic substances in the past 100 years and bearing in mind that this Bill must have an effect on the major industry, the livestock industry, there should be, as the N.F.A. say, more than a single voice in a council of 15 to represent the point of view of the farmer who is concerned each day with the requirements of livestock and animals and with the application of dangerous drugs and poisons. That is an eminently reasonable submission when it is borne in mind that the advisory council will advise the Minister for Health and the Minister for Agriculture with regard to the sale, distribution, manufacture, limitation, control, and so on, of the different substances which will be defined as poisonous. Further, the council will advise the Minister on the making of regulations relating to the use of poisons. It will obviously be very much present to the farmer's mind if there is a possibility that regulations may be made proscribing and prohibiting the use of poisons in the manner in which he has been accustomed to use them. The Minister may say that that will not happen. Deputy Loughman doubted that it could happen. Legislation has been passed by the Oireachtas which, in operation, has been found to operate in quite a different way from what was intended.
All we are concerned with, as I think most Deputies should also be concerned with, is to ensure that this new body, which is dealing with an entirely new situation, will have available to it not merely the view of a single farmer but the view of at least three farmers who know the common day-to-day problems which exist and who know what a farmer has to do and what he customarily has done in relation to various poisons and chemical substances for cattle.
I think it is a reasonable proposition. I certainly fail to understand the heat which this amendment has engendered in the Minister's mind. We all know that the primary purpose of this Bill may be to safeguard human health. Of course, it is, but you can safeguard human health in the way suggested here, without causing quite unnecessary inconvenience to other people. All we are suggesting is that the council should be so constituted that unnecessary inconvenience, unnecessary restrictions and unnecessary controls will not be suggested by the council to either of the Ministers concerned. That is best ensured by providing for additional farmer representation on the body to be set up.
There is a good deal of uneasiness among the rural fraternity about this Bill. We all accept the necessity for the Bill, because in these days, when new drugs come on the market at all times, it is wise and prudent that there should be certain safeguards. The very fact that the Minister had a document in his hand from the N.F.A. indicates quite positively that there is uneasiness. We may assume that the N.F.A. is a body with a broad national conception and that it can speak, I think, as one of the first bodies in this country to represent the farmers organised on a national basis.
Heretofore, the farmer was able to buy certain drugs on the market which prevented disease arriving at an acute stage. Let us take the case of a farmer who has 20 cows, as many young calves, yearlings and, perhaps, two-year-olds. At the same time, he may have 20 sheep, exclusive of lambs, and as many pigs and poultry. Hardly a day passes on the farm that one of these animals at some time does not show signs of illness. If the farmer were to go to a vet on every occasion, when a menace of that kind appears, he would get nowhere in the end. Because of the patent medicines on the market and because of the co-operation of the pharmaceutical fraternity, he is able to get remedies that will tide him over any difficulty at the time.
The facilities heretofore afforded to the farmer may now disappear under this Bill. The Minister has taken the widest possible interpretation and I sincerely hope he is right in saying that no Minister will do anything either directly through regulations, or through his representatives on the board, to curtail the facilities heretofore afforded to the farming community. At the same time, there is fear and suspicion. The best way to allay that fear and dispel these suspicions is to increase the representation asked for here. It is not a political matter; it is an easy matter. The Minister still has the power but if the Minister wants to make the Bill perfect and make it generally acceptable, I think it advisable that he should increase the farmer representation on the board.
I have no doubt that the Minister means well in what he said and that he is confident there will be no danger, but how can the farmers speak, except through their own representatives, on this council? As individuals, they can have no say. It is only as an organised community, through their representatives, that they will be able to have any influence on the board. For that reason, I appeal to the Minister to be as sympathetic as possible and concede a little more than he has already conceded and widen the scope of the representation now being sought through the literature circulated by the N.F.A. and various other bodies throughout the country. They have certain fears that, when this Bill comes into force, they will be denied the facilities they had before this Bill appeared.
I indicated that I was prepared to accede to the request by the N.F.A. that I should increase the number of persons to be nominated under paragraph (f). If the House will agree to my amendment, I will bring in an amendment on Report Stage with certain consequential amendments to that effect.
Will the Minister look at paragraph (g) on the assumption that paragraph (g) stands? Would he be prepared to say that it would be his intention that, of those three persons, one should represent the agricultural community? The farmers have fears that if they go into a body of this kind, one fellow may find himself alone without anyone to consult. It is extremely difficult for him adequately to discharge his responsibility. He may suffer himself to be talked down for the want of somebody to consult with and determine whether an issue falling to be considered is one upon which he ought not to take a very strong line or one upon which he could compromise in the circumstances. It is as easy as that. If it were indicated that the one in paragraph (f) was to be two and that the Minister for Health proposed to use his powers under paragraph (g) to appoint another person in the farming interest, I think the difficulty would be largely overcome.
There is no use in Deputy Loughman or any other Deputy arguing that the farmers will be satisfied with a poisons council which has on it two doctors, five chemists and two farmers. They think that is inequitable. I should much prefer to see this council working; I should much prefer to see a proposal of this kind get off on the right foot. If it does, we shall probably hear nothing more about it. It will function quite quietly, but if there is an enduring sense of grievance, I think it creates an unnecessary sense of distrust in the agricultural community.
I feel that sense of responsibility. I feel it is something grossly inappropriate to provide the present balance on the council, particularly having regard to the Minister's original proposal. When the Minister first had this matter under consideration, he proposed in the original Bill that there should be two doctors, two chemists, two veterinary surgeons, one person with a knowledge of poisonous substances in agriculture and three other persons nominated by himself.
He then produces an amendment in which the two chemists become five chemists and a proposal that there should be one other person with a knowledge of poisonous substances in agriculture and one person representative of the farming community. I submit that that is simply looking for trouble. It gives rise to a resentment which I do not think unreasonable. If the Minister thought it right to increase representation in relation to the pharmaceutical society from two to five, I do not think it is unreasonable for the farming community to say they should have three men, so that, in all circumstances two would be there to lend their joint wisdom to the council.
I do not want this council to function as a combination of contending vested interests. The best thing that could happen in respect of this council would be that we would never hear its name again, that it would function quietly and discreetly, and that its recommendations would command virtually unanimous consent. I do not want a situation to arise in which every order made under this Bill will invite the suspicious, apprehensive attention of every farmers' organisation in the country. I believe you will effectively avoid that if you appoint three representatives of the farming community. I believe that if you do less, you will create the very evil I apprehend.
I do not want to force the Minister to accept my words, Deputy Blowick's words, or anyone else's words. The Minister has indicated, by putting down his amendment, that he has had second thoughts and believes now he ought to have two persons under paragraph (f). If he does not want to go the whole way with regard to paragraph (f), would he consider under paragraph (g) availing of the services of one person who would be generally esteemed to be a person with an understanding of these problems from the farmers' point of view?
If I say "Yes" to every amendment designed to secure additional representation for certain specialist interests, I do not know where I shall stop. There is a practical problem arising inasmuch as we should then have an unwiedly council, and we cannot have an unwiedly council. When I was considering the council originally, my anxiety was to keep it as small as possible. There is a belief—I do not subscribe fully to it myself—that the smaller the committee, the more work is done and the more expeditiously the committee works. I have certain reservations with regard to that. However, having listened to the debate on Second Reading, I came to certain conclusions. First of all, I decided, because of the important part the pharmaceutical profession plays in the distribution of poisonous substances, that there should be on the council some person who is not only a qualified pharmaceutical chemist, but whose main occupation is the teaching of pharmacy. From that, other considerations arose. The National Farmers Association have been asking for special representation for what might be described as the agricultural community. I decided I would concede that. Arising out of that, there was an anxiety to have a certain balance on the council and there was an enlargement of the council in other directions until it expanded from 10 to 15. How much further is it intended we should go?
I do not want to go any further at all.
If I accept the view of the N.F.A. and put two people on, I cannot go any further. If I put two persons on, on the nomination of the Minister for Agriculture under paragraph (f), I cannot go further. I cannot cut down the representation of the general community.
Surely a farmer legitimately constitutes part of the general community?
Precisely.
That is all the Minister has to say.
No, and that is not what is being suggested. The farmer is a very important element in our community, but he is not the whole by any means. There are other people who have interests in this and who will claim very loudly that they also are entitled to be heard on the council. I am not conceding specific representation, but I am saying that, because of the use which farmers make of these poisonous substances, there should be some person on the council to detail the problems which may confront the farmer if a certain regulation is made.
Do not forget that there are other people engaged in very vital lines of manufacturing, for instance, who also have an interest. In the manufacturing industry, the use of poisonous substances is expanding rapidly. I must also have regard to the position of those whose business may call upon them to handle these substances, not for sale to farmers but to others. We should, as I said, think in terms of the community as a whole. When the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, one feature of the council which received commendation from the Leader of the Labour Party was the proposal that there should be three other persons, irrespective of whether or not they had any specialist qualifications, to speak for the community as a whole.
I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to accept that I am going as far as I reasonably can, having regard to the fact that I want to keep the size of the council within limits. I may have to come in with a consequential amendment on the Report Stage to deal with the case of the medical profession, not as users or as having any interest in the drug but merely as persons who would be able to say the extent to which certain substances are therapeutic substances or have therapeutic values. I would be prepared, on the Report Stage, to bring in an amendment to increase the number under paragraph (f) to two and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition not to press me to make a commitment which some Minister for Health might find a great embarrassment to him when he comes to set up a council. I do not exclude the possibility that there may be a person who could be regarded as a farmer but, if he were to go on the council, that would not be the reason that he was going on it. He would be a person with some other qualification and it would be an additional assistance if he had also an knowledge of farming.
There is to be an amendment to extend paragraph (f) from one to two?
Definitely.
And in the choice of persons under paragraph (g) a person of farming experience is not excluded?
He is not excluded.
Is Deputy Blowick's amendment withdrawn?
I have no power to withdraw it.
Amendment a.1. put and declared lost.
I move amendment 1 to amendment 1:
To add to subsection (3) the following paragraph:
"(c) At least one of the persons referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be a person who has special knowledge and experience of the application of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1934, to hospital practice."
I put down this amendment as much to get information from the Minister as part of a suggestion which I think might be of some assistance to him in farming this new legislation. The reason I have suggested that the council should have a person of a specialised knowledge or experience of the operation of the Dangerous Drugs Acts in hospital practice arises from certain historic developments and personal experience in hospital practice. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister's position in regard to the increase in the size of the council. If a Minister has any experience of councils and if he wants to ensure that a council will not work he accepts all the recommendations made to him regarding the inclusion of all possible vested interests. It is reasonable that a council of this kind should be kept within reasonable limits.
However, I suggest that there is a case for trying to ensure that the members of the pharmaceutical profession are included on it. The position has changed very much since the passing of the original Dangerous Drugs Act and the amending Act and it seems to me that while the Pharmaceutical Society have taken very great pains, with considerable success, to ensure that the use of drugs will be exercised in a most careful way in order to achieve the end which the Minister suggests is the main objective of the Bill—that drugs cannot be wilfully used or wilfully misused—in that I think the Pharmaceutical Society has been most successful in regard to the ordinary use of drugs by the pharmacists themselves and by members of the medical profession. They have succeeded in achieving a certain measure of control in the use of drugs and in that way I think the large scale abuse of dangerous drugs has been avoided to a considerable extent.
In recent years there has been a very considerable change in the use of dangerous drugs caused by the marked expansion in hospital services, in the use of hospitals of one kind or another. I do not think that the Society of Pharmaceutical Chemists have taken that great change into account to the extent they might have. I do not think they have extended the meticulous supervision of the storage and use of drugs to hospital practice that they have to ordinary medical practice. While it is true to say that many hospitals have introduced their own system and regulations for the control of drugs so that there is the same security in the use of these drugs in these hospitals as there is outside in general practice, I suspect that there are a number of hospitals, possibly the smaller ones, in which there is not this same respect or fear of the drugs which are used in practice particularly in regard to human beings.
I am afraid that the same stringent precautions are not exercised and for that reason I think that a chemist with special experience in hospital practice would be a useful addition to the council. I do not mean that addition as an individual but that should be one of the necessary qualifications of one of the pharmacists included on the council. I think that is establishing no new precedent here. The chemist primarily experienced in hospital practice is as different in practice from the chemist in ordinary practice outside as the difference between a dispensary doctor and a specialist or a specialist and a medical officer of health.
Most Ministers attempt in the various commissions and councils to see that all these different interests are represented. It could be said that any doctor could represent the specialist, the medical officer of health and the dispensary doctor; but I do not think that is accepted generally. We try to see that each different interest is represented and that they will be in a position to give their own practical experience of work of this kind in the discussion of the problems which come before them. Consequently, I think, the pharmacist, with his special experience, would be a help to this council.
There has been a considerable expansion in hospital practice and a very much greater number of people go to hospital now for treatment. There is a much greater choice of drugs, dangerous in one way or another, available in a hospital. It is more than likely that the average hospital pharmacist is in control of very much greater stores of drugs— not that that is the important point— but he certainly is in control of as large stocks of drugs as the pharmacist outside. When the Dangerous Drugs Act was first introduced the drugs available, particularly drugs from an addiction point of view, were very limited: opium, the various compounds of it, morphia and a few of these very basic drugs. But that has changed very much now. One has not only the different groups of opium derivatives, but one has the new synthetic, sedative, pain-killing, soporific type of drugs, all tremendously increased and under the control of a hospital chemist.
Of course, that is the operative point. Are they under the control of the hospital chemist to anything like the same extent as they are under the control of the chemist outside? The Minister is concerned, and has tried to emphasise the whole time that he is concerned for the public welfare. That must be true, and I accept that in this Bill. But it seems to me it is important, therefore, that somebody must have ultimate and absolute responsibility. The ordering, storing and issuing of drugs should be all related, if one can put it that way, to one individual person; and I think the hospital pharmacist is that person.
How that is to be done without offending the various other interests in the hospital, the matrons, the medical profession, the nursing profession, and at the same time giving them freedom of action, giving them ready access in emergencies to these drugs, is a matter with which the council should concern itself. There are many practical points which will come up, not readily obvious to anybody who does not work in a hospital, and in regard to which, I think, a pharmacist with hospital experience could be of great help.
It is a fact also that in a hospital it has been shown that—whether it is a consequence of or sequel to it or not I do not know—the incidence of drug addiction is probably highest amongst members of the medical profession and, I understand, is very high, relatively, amongst members of the nursing profession. Obviously, this is no criticism of them at all, and it is not intended as such. But it does seem to me to suggest that there is a case for a rather more stringent supervision and control of drugs in hospitals.
It might be said by the Minister that the best judges of this whole matter are the Pharmaceutical Society, who appreciate these difficulties. If that is so, they have not, to my knowledge at any rate, drawn up anything like the same stringent regulations for the use of drugs in hospital practice as they have done for outside practice. For that reason, I have put down this amendment in order to, possibly, improve the Bill. But it may be that the Minister will be in a position to tell us whether he is completely satisfied with the control and use of drugs in hospital practice and whether he has any information at his disposal which makes him feel that the system under which drugs are controlled in hospitals at the moment is particularly satisfactory.
This council should make as one of its first tasks the establishment of some kind of uniform system to be adopted by all hospitals for the use and control of drugs, that a uniform system of regulations under the Dangerous Drugs Acts should be extended to all hospitals and that the same system of inspection should be established by them and accepted by the hospitals who use these dangerous drugs. The drawing up of such a uniform scheme is a very difficult matter. It will have to cover all sorts of institutions, mental hospitals, sanatoria, general hospitals and nursing homes. I suggest to the Minister that his council would be greatly assisted by having a person who had very considerable experience of as many forms as possible of the application of the Dangerous Drugs Acts in hospital practice.
I have asked the Deputy not to press this amendment. I feel that, in so far as it relates particularly to the use of certain substances in hospital practice, it is rather outside the general intention of the Bill. After all, what the Minister for Health is empowered to do is set out in Section 14. There it will be seen, in subsection (3), that, without prejudice to the other regulations that may be made, the emphasis is laid upon the sale and keeping for sale of poisons. It is true that under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) regulations may be made with respect to the storage, transport and keeping for sale of poisons; but I think this must be read as that it is in respect of storage for the purpose of having for sale certain poisons. Therefore, I would ask the Deputy not to press the amendment. First of all, it does not fall strictly within the scheme of the Bill. Is this not a matter to be dealt with under the Dangerous Drugs Act? I do not think it quite fits into the picture on this Bill. When we come to consider the question of appointments to the council, we might get someone who might have to possess the special knowledge and experience to which the Deputy's amendment refers.
Has the Minister any information on the position in relation to the use of drugs in hospitals?
I have not any information and no person has made any representations to me that the position in hospitals presents any problem from the point of view of addiction. If such information came to my knowledge, I might modify my view.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 27, before "The members" to insert "Subject to subsection (3) of this section,"
Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are consequential on this amendment. This is merely to provide for a case which might arise preventing the filling of a casual council vacancy.
In other words, it deals with the situation where the council would not be forced to fill a vacancy the next day.
That is so.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 29, before "Before the" to insert "Subject to subsection (3) of this section,"
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, line 30, to substitute "fifteen" for "ten".
This is designed to increase the membership of the council from ten to fifteen.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, to add to the section the following subsection:
"() If, during any period when the number of persons standing appointed as members of the council is less than fifteen, it is not in the opinion of the Minister, practicable to appoint any other person to be a member of the council, the council shall, during that period, consist of the persons standing appointed as aforesaid."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, lines 37 and 38, to substitute "term of office (being a term of not more than five years)" for "tenure of office" in both places where it occurs.
This is merely to fix the term of office at not more than five years. This provision was asked for by Deputy Manley on Second Reading.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed. "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Is it not normal in the drafting of such sections as this to put in the words "for stated reasons"?
I do not think so.
I thought such a provision was necessary, where the Minister is being given absolute power of removal, so that he would give the reasons why he was so removing. I seem to remember discussions on it in the House.
The Deputy may have heard discussions. He will see that it might be embarrassing not merely to the Minister but to the person concerned. Let us suppose a person becomes of unsound mind.
The Minister has convinced me.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, before section 10, to insert the following section:
A member of the council who ceases for any reason to hold office as such member shall be eligible for re-appointment.
This is, to some extent, consequential on Section 9 and it provides that a member of the council who ceases to hold office shall always be eligible for re-appointment. It is a new section and involves the deletion of Section 10.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10 deleted.
Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, line 1, after "transport," to insert "distribution,"
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are consequential on this amendment, which provides that the distribution of poisons shall be controlled, in addition to the other matters provided for in the section. Deputies may think that transport and supply might cover it, but we want to make sure the question of distribution will be covered adequately. It has been pointed out that any carelessness in distribution might lead to theft or loss of dangerous drugs.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, line 7, after "prohibit the" to insert "distributing".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 5, line 15, after "may be" to insert "distributed".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5, subsection (3), after paragraph (b), to insert the following paragraph, namely:
"() provide that section 30 of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, and sections 15 and 17 of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875 Amendment Act, 1890, shall not apply in relation to the sale or the keeping of open shop for the selling, retailing, dispensing, mixing or compounding of poisons by any person or class of persons specified in the regulations where the sale or the keeping of open shop is in accordance with the provisions of the regulations,".
The Schedule to the Bill provides that Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland) 1875 shall be repealed in so far as it relates to the prohibition on keeping open shop for the sale and compounding of poisons. Section 14 3 (b) of the Bill will provide for specification of persons or classes by whom poisons may be sold. It is thought, however, that the existing statutory rights of members of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland should be safeguarded. Under amendment 18 it is proposed that the part of the repeal Schedule relating to section 30 of the 1875 Act be deleted and amendment No. 11 is required as a corollary to the amendment we are discussing now to provide that the general prohibition in Section 30 will not apply in the case of classes of persons specified in the regulations under Section 14 (3) (b) who will be mainly sellers of poisons for agricultural purposes.
Could I get some information on this? I do not follow it.
It is very difficult, I am afraid.
I dare say it is but what I should like to know is this:
The section refers to Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, 1875. That was an Act which prohibited the keeping of an open shop for retailing, dispensing or compounding poisons. Am I right so far?
Yes, that is right.
That prohibition, under the amendment, is not to apply in respect of the sale of certain poisons which will be specified in regulations.
Yes.
Is that the effect of it?
Certain persons.
The Minister tells us the regulations are going to specify poisons which will be used, such as weed-killers and all the rest of it, for agricultural purposes?
Yes, that is so.
The section goes no further than that?
No further than that.
May I ask the Minister a question, because I want to know where I am going? This section has nothing to do with differences that may exist between the apothecaries and the pharmaceutical chemists?
No—the Deputy means by the apothecaries, the licentiates?
Yes.
No; it has nothing to do with that.
Their rights are preserved?
All the existing rights under the 1875 Act are there.
Such rights as are there at the moment continue?
Yes.
I am just wondering about the point made by Deputy O'Higgins. In sub-paragraph (d) of subsection (3) there is reference to registered medical practitioners and it is repeated later on.
"provide for licensing or registering by health authorities of persons (other than registered medical practitioners, pharmaceutical chemists, dispensing chemists..." These are the persons whose rights are already prescribed under the 1875 Act.
I thought the licentiates of the Apothecaries Hall were included in that. Medical practitioners, as a rule, have not been vendors of poisons.
No, but they may have certain rights at the moment. What may happen when the new Pharmacy Bill comes in is another matter.
This row will be on the Pharmacy Bill?
Yes.
They are not at the moment.
I think they would be considered to be.
Unless they go through the Apothecaries Hall and then are registered.
They are entitled to be registered—is that not the position?
Certain of them only, those who take out the qualifications of the Apothecaries Hall.
I agree.
And then apply to us for registration.
But they are entitled to be on the register and entitled to do everything the pharmaceutical chemists do.
Those are but they are registered as pharmaceutical chemists and not registered as medical practitioners.
Oh no; we are at cross-purposes there.
The Minister assures me that this has nothing to do with that row?
No. It merely arises out of the fact that it was thought better to——
——allow people to sell weedkillers?
Yes. It was thought better that instead of repealing this particular Section 30 of the Pharmacy Act, as we proposed to do under the provision in the Schedule, we should allow it to stand and put in this provision in Section 14.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11a:
11a. In page 6, to add to the section the following subsection:
"(5) Neither section 13 of the County Management Act, 1940, nor section 17 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, shall apply in respect of any power, function or duty relating to licensing or registering of persons or premises under regulations under subsection (3) of this section."
There is a provision in Section 14 subsection (3) subparagraph (d)—I think that is what Deputy Loughman had in mind. Section 14 (3) (d) provides for the licensing or registering by health authorities of persons outside these, shall we say, specialist categories, who are engaged in selling or offering or keeping for sale poisons and of premises in which poisons are sold or offered or kept for sale. It is intended that in future the licences to do this should be granted by the county manager in person, that he should not delegate that function, but that he should grant these licences in person so that they will be granted by a responsible person. There is, of course, a right of appeal from any refusal on his part to grant a licence. The existing system needs to be tightened up somewhat. I gather it is somewhat lax in its administration and, in view of the fact that we are now dealing with very dangerous preparations, it is felt that there should be some specific person who should carry responsibility for the issuing of these licences. At the same time, we are providing for an appeal from such a person to the Minister in the case of a refusal to grant a licence.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In subsection (1) (b), lines 34 and 35, to delete "and veterinary" and in lines 37 and 38 to delete "or veterinary".
This amendment has been put down in the sense of the earlier discussion we had on Section 4 and it expresses the concern which is felt by a large number of Deputies on our side of the House, and probably on other sides of the House also, in relation to what may be involved under Section 15.
Section 15 applies to the Minister for Agriculture and under the section, as I understand it, the Minister for Agriculture on the recommendation of the council is empowered to make regulations declaring, I assume, from time to time, particular substances which may be in common use amongst farmers to be poisons for the purpose of the Act. If he declares them to be poisons, then it is just as if they were scheduled and named as such. However, the regulations made go on to specify and deal with the use of these substances for agricultural and veterinary purposes. Agricultural purposes we can except at the moment because we understand that to have reference to the use of weed killers, fertilisers and things of that kind but when it goes on to say "and veterinary purposes" we on this side of the House query whether that is wise or proper.
At the moment and traditionally there are a large number of animal maladies which are treated and cured by various bottles and mixtures which are obtained from different chemists and druggists throughout the country and they are prescribed and given by the owner of the livestock involved. We are concerned, in relation to the section as it stands, lest regulations may be made, as they appear possible to be made under the section, prohibiting the use of these substances in future for what may be called veterinary purposes. It is not defined in the Bill but we assume a veterinary purpose is any purpose intended to cure an animal of a malady from which it is suffering. We are concerned to know whether this will mean from now on that farmers keeping any form of livestock may have to engage the services of a practitioner in veterinary medicine in order to apply and administer a simple cure, which incidentally may be defined as a poison, to an animal suffering from some malady.
If that is the effect of the section, we would be very much opposed to it and the purpose of the amendment which is down in my name is to exclude from the operation of the section the word "veterinary"—the other amendments are just consequential on amendment No. 13—and to continue the right which is traditional and which I think has been accepted in an earlier part of the debate of any owner of livestock to administer any form of cure by a bottle or substance that he thinks will overcome the malady from which his animal is suffering.
This council is being set up and power is being given to it to consider all these matters, to advise on regulations, and so on, in relation to the sale, processing, manufacture and distribution of various poisons and we are now in Section 15 dealing with a chemical substance the sale, manufacture and distribution of which is pretty well scrutinised and controlled. We are concerned that a farmer who goes into a chemist shop, or wherever he goes, and buys a mixture or a bottle which he wants to administer to a beast that he has at home is not put in the position that he cannot do this in future without engaging a professional person to prescribe for him what he always done up to this himself.
If I thought what Deputy O'Higgins says would happen I would be glad to support him, but there are drugs and medicines manufactured which may be a danger to the person using them and might be even a danger to animals other than the animal which is being treated. It is proper that the council should have power to make representations to the Minister and that the Minister should have power to make regulations prohibiting the use by incompetent persons of certain very vicious medical preparations. It is absolutely essential that this clause should be in the Bill and I do not anticipate that it will infringe in any way on the rights of farmers using any of the ordinary or even extraordinary drugs that may appear. I regard this provision merely as a protection for the user of the drug and to a certain extent as a protection to animals.
This amendment is carefully drafted: "To delete the word `veterinary' " while leaving in the section the word "agricultural." There may be poisonous sprays which it is necessary to control under certain regulations for the protection of personnel who are charged with the responsibility of spraying, who might by accident come in contact with such sprays with consequent detriment to the health of themselves or other persons who might inadvertently come within their range. However, it is fantastic to say that regulations are going to be made to control the use of drugs on animals. Why? What is the point of it? If a man wants to kill his own beast why should Parliament intervene to stop him?
He ought not to be allowed to kill himself.
He could jump off a roof if he wanted to kill himself and the drugs are not going to stop him. One could kill oneself drinking water or taking aspirin. The trouble about pharmaceutical chemists and other professional persons is that they get so anxious about their neighbour's health that they would put us all in institutions behind bars to protect us from ourselves. I wish these interested parties would leave us alone. We have survived so far, reared families and we have not poisoned ourselves, burned ourselves or choked ourselves. These people make it virtually impossible to carry on any activity, they are so anxious we will not burn our fingers or cut our hands. The pharmaceutical chemists should remember they would have to shut their shops if the farmers were not coming into them.
We realise that.
And you are apparently intent on creating a situation in which, if a farmer has to dose a pig, he will have to bring out a whole army of vets and pharmaceutical chemists to allow him to give the pig a dose. That is the kind of thing that drives reasonable people climbing up the walls. Farmers are reasonable people and they know that certain poisonous sprays of recent invention require control in order to prevent promiscuous damage being done but where you are giving a pig an injection of penicillin or acromycin——
Penicillin is not a poison.
That is the kind of codology I am always talking about.
It is not a poison.
The whole purpose of this Bill is to create a situation in which a whole lot of new therapeutic substances can be scheduled as poisons and two things will happen: One is they can only be sold by Deputy Loughman's colleagues and the other is that the two vets on the council will start warning us, just as Deputy Loughman is warning us: "For your own good, we are going to schedule this and schedule that as a poison." And Deputy Loughman and two vets will now come out and say it is 10/- per vet and 5/- per pharmaceutical chemist and then there is another little profit——
And how much is it to pay the undertaker? Will the Deputy consider that?
Listen——
It is important.
There are 360,000 farmers in the country and not one of them has ever been poisoned with veterinary medicine in my recollection.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.