Poisons Bill, 1960—Report and Final Stages.

Minister for Health (Mr. MacEntee)

I suggest that amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 be discussed together. I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 12, to substitute "three" for "two".

These three amendments all relate to the one proposal which is to increase the number of medical personnel on the Council from two to three and to provide that at least two of the three shall be Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians. As the House is aware, for almost threequarters of a century the administration of the Poisons Act has been very largely regulated, one might say, by the Royal College of Physicians. When speaking on the amendment to increase the number of people directly chosen from the farming community, Deputy Dillon awakened my attention to what was a possible defect in the Bill—that on occasions, by reason of the limited specialist personnel available, the Council might be hampered in its deliberations. Also, the Royal College of Physicians would wish to have that possibility avoided and so, for that reason, I propose to increase the number of Fellows on the Council from one to two. That is, in fact, what the proposal in the three amendments taken together will do.

Mr. Dillon

I do not think the Minister has fully met the point I raised. I concede he has come part of the way.

Mr. MacEntee

I think I came all of the way. The Deputy was good enough to announce his satisfaction with the amendments.

Mr. Dillon

In any case, he has certainly come part of the way to increase the representation of agricultural interests on this Council but it has to be borne in mind that there are to be two persons representing farming interests on a relatively large body. I want to draw a comparison between this and another council that we have just set up. This body which, after all, has serious responsibilities cast upon it now consists of 17 persons. On another occasion I was arguing—and I shall argue again—that where adequate and equitable representation of farming interests is required, it would not be unreasonable to extend the membership of a council of this character from seven to nine. I was told by a colleague of the Minister for Health that it would be out of the question.

We have the ridiculous situation on another committee to be established by a Bill which is at present going through the House that we shall have seven members, three representing manufacturers and two representing farmers. If it is possible to operate this Bill with 17 and if it is possible for the Minister for Health to meet the pharmaceutical chemists and extend their representation to five, as he felt it his duty to do and again to increase by his amendment the representation afforded to physicians——

Mr. MacEntee

There is no question of representation here.

Mr. Dillon

I am not questioning it. If it is desirable to increase the representation of physicians that is all right by me if it makes the body more effective and efficient for its purpose. All I want to say is that, if it is possible to do that in the context of this Bill, one would have imagined it would be possible to do far less in the context of the other Bill which the House is at present considering. It is a source of some mitigated satisfaction to me that the Minister for Health has been persuaded to show some consideration of the claims of the agricultural community to be represented on a body of this kind which does control so many things of intimate concern to that community. I compare this consideration with the categorical refusal of the Minister for Agriculture to provide adequate representation for farmers with bacon curers on the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board which deals much more intimately with the affairs of the rural community than this poisons body can ever do.

I suggest to the Minister for Health, who is so strong a protagonist for the proposition that Governments all have a common mind, that in connection with this other Bill which is now in progress through this House he should approach his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, and remind him that, if he considers it expedient to make this concession to the agricultural community, the Minister for Agriculture might follow his example with regard to the community for which he is responsible to the House.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no analogy whatever between the functions of this advisory council and the other board to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. The other board is an administrative body, a regulating body, a controlling body and, in some instances, a trading body and it would be quite inappropriate to have such a body with a membership of 17 as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Dillon

Seven.

Mr. MacEntee

Seventeen. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has suggested.

Mr. Dillon

I suggested nine.

Mr. MacEntee

When he tries to establish a false analogy between the functions of this board and the functions of the board to which he refers the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the other board should have the same number of members which is 17.

Mr. Dillon

That it should be nine members.

Mr. MacEntee

Whether it is seven or nine, there is no analogy between the two bodies. This Board is an advisory body to which the Minister for Health, whoever he may be, when he proposes to make an order with relation to poisons, may submit that order for the comments of the Council. When he receives those comments he will consider his order in the light of them. He need not necessarily accept their comments. He may modify or accept the whole or part of them. It is desirable that all those who have a special knowledge of the subject, not a special interest in it, should be represented as far as is reasonably possible on such a Board in order that all the aspects of the Minister's proposal might be examined and that he might have available to him the joint wisdom of all knowledgeable persons. That is the purpose of this council which has no function in any way similar to that to be discharged by the Pigs and Bacon Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 37 and 38 and to insert the following paragraph:

"(f) two persons nominated by the Minister for Agriculture each of whom is a person whose main occupation is farming, and".

I understand that this amendment meets the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition in part. He did make a very strong point that if only one person with special knowledge of poisonous substances was nominated to represent the agricultural industry, such person might not always be in a position to attend. This does not mean that because there are only two people whose main occupation is farming directly appointed on the nomination of the Minister there will not be other people on the board who will have a knowledge of farming.

Mr. Dillon

I acknowledge that this amendment comes part of the way to meet me and I recall that the Minister said that the possibility of some other people having agricultural experience would not exclude them from membership of the Board. I recommend the Minister's example in this matter to his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture. The approach of the Tánaiste to the dilemma is more constructive and helpful than that of his colleague. It is not yet too late for his colleague to mend his hand.

Amendment agreed to.