Poisons Bill, 1960—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Health (Mr. MacEntee)

The purpose of this Bill is to replace by a modern code, which will be comprehensive and adaptable to changing circumstances, a number of old laws for the control of the sale of poisons which date back to the middle of the 19th century.

In the main, the present law on the matter is contained in the Arsenic Act, 1851, and the Poisons (Ireland) Act, 1870, with subsidiary provisions in the Pharmacy (Ireland) Act of 1875, and an amending Act of 1908. The 1851 Act required sales of arsenic to be recorded, permitting them only where the purchaser was known to the seller or where the sale was witnessed by a mutual acquaintance. The 1870 Act applies to a number of poisons and those to which it applied initially are listed in a schedule to it. This schedule is divided into two parts; and when any of the preparations listed in either part of it are offered for sale, the word "poison" and the name and address of the seller must be distinctly set out on the container. The familiar more venomous poisons such as arsenic, prussic acid and strychnine are included in Part I of the Schedule; and in relation to all preparations in this Part, the Act imposes similar conditions as to records and sales as the 1851 Act applies to sales of arsenic.

The 1875 Act was concerned, in the first place, with establishing the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland and provides consequentially for the registration of pharmaceutical chemists. It affected the subject with which we are now dealing only to the extent that Section 30 of the Act restricted to pharmaceutical chemists and other qualified persons the right to keep open shop, as it was termed, for the sale of poisons. This restriction, however, was subsequently modified by Section 2 of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908, so as to provide that other persons may be licensed for the sale of poisons for agricultural and veterinary purposes. The licences in question are issued by local authorities and the licensees are, in the main, hardware merchants and seed merchants.

A grave defect in the present law is that, while under the 1870 Act a procedure exists for the addition of poisons to the schedule, there is no provision for deleting any preparation from it, or for bringing the nomenclature up to date. Neither can a poison, once it has been included in one part of the schedule, be transferred to the other, so that the controls decided upon when a substance is added to the schedule cannot subsequently be varied.

For instance, no power is given to the appropriate authority to make a regulation to the effect that a particularly virulent or dangerous substance shall not be made available to the public, otherwise than on the prescription of a qualified practitioner. Again, except in the case of a few substances, there is no provision relating to labelling, beyond the simple requirement that the word "Poison" be printed on the label and the name and address of the seller given. In modern conditions, it is desirable to be able to prescribe more distinctive and specific warnings than these. For example, carbon tetrachloride, which is often a constituent of preparations for removing stains from clothes, is a highly volatile substance and may give off fumes which are highly dangerous if it is used in a confined space. The container of any preparation of this type should bear on its face a warning to this effect.

Under the 1870 Act, a substance may be added to the Poisons Schedule only when the College of Physicians declare it to be appropriate for this purpose and the Government, in endorsement of the recommendation of the College, make an Order accordingly. While this rather limited function has been satisfactorily discharged by the College, I feel that with the development of numerous new synthetic poisons for use not only in medicine, but in industry and agriculture, a more broadly based advisory body is desirable.

The need for flexibility; for more rapid action when called for; for larger powers to regulate—for the greater safety of the public—the sale, use and distribution of deadly substances; and for a wider range of advisers have been the considerations which have shaped the provisions of the Bill.

These needs are met by Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, which provide, respectively, for the establishment, functions and constitution of a consultative council, Comhairle na Nimheanna, and for the appointment of its chairman and members; by Section 14 which empowers the Minister for Health—be it noted after consultation with or on the recommendation of the Council—to make regulations declaring substances to be poisonous and regulating their storage, distribution, supply and sale; and by Section 15 which similarly empowers the Minister for Agriculture, again after consultation with the Council or on the recommendation of the Council, to regulate the use of poisonous substances for agricultural or veterinary purposes.

Section 18 provides that every regulation made shall be laid as soon as may be before each House of the Oireachtas and that any such regulation may be annulled by resolution of either House passed in due time. It may happen, as a matter of urgency, that the Minister concerned may be obliged to make a regulation without prior consultation with the Council and this is provided for under Section 16. If, however, the Minister should have to make a regulation under that section, the regulation, when laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, must be accompanied by a statement in writing indicating that it has been made without prior consultation.

In relation to all its provisions, I want to stress that the sole purpose of the measure is to safeguard the people, their lives and their health, against the misuse of the highly dangerous substances which, for one beneficial or useful purpose or another, are now being produced in continuously increasing numbers. The rapidity with which the new poisonous substances are being evolved and offered to the public, makes it quite impracticable to control their distribution and use by ad hoc legislation as they emerge. There is no alternative but to deal with them by ministerial regulation and administrative action and this is what the Bill proposes, but under certain conditions which I have mentioned. The first of these, may I recall, is that, except in case of emergency, the appropriate Minister must, before making a regulation, consult with the Council which is to be established under the Bill; and the second is that any regulation which the Minister may make must be laid before the Oireachtas, either House of which will have power to annul it. Thus the possibility of the unnecessary or arbitrary exercise of his powers by a Minister is provided against.

I trust the House will not have any difficulty, in the circumstances I have outlined, in giving a Second Reading to the Bill. In the other House, there was no objection to it in principle and the only points on which there was any discussion had reference to the composition of the proposed advisory council, Comhairle na Nimheanna, and the related matter of the control of agricultural and veterinary use of poisons. All these are matters which may I think, be more suitably debated on Committee Stage; and I would suggest, therefore, that any discussion on them or on other details of the Bill might be reserved until then.

Mr. Donegan

The remarks I wish to address to you, Sir, and to the Minister, on this Bill have relation largely to the provision with regard to the sale of poisons to farmers. The use of weedicides and fungicides causes the need for this type of legislation. As we move towards a more regulated existence and a more complex method of doing things, bringing in new medicines, and new chemical preparations from which we benefit, legislation with regard to the use of these preparations must be a matter to which this House and the other House can properly address themselves.

This Bill is of great importance to farmers. At the outset, I should like to say that it may not be fully appreciated that the use of poisons in various forms by farmers over the past ten years has increased and multiplied itself many times over. It now covers a much wider range than did the original fungicides. The ordinary sprays used to control the fungus which caused blight in potatoes have extended themselves to cover all sorts of new weedicides—contact weed killers, hormone weed killers, vaccines used by injection into animals, young lambs, and so on, and all sorts of medicines which were unknown until the end of the war. In that context, it is most important that the use of these be regulated, but it is also most important that the farmers who enjoyed the free use of these articles at low charge, which were supplied to them at a low rate of profit, should continue to enjoy them at such low rate of profit.

We must examine the present situation. Over the past number of years, there has been a certain conflict between the chemists and the veterinary profession as to whether or not farmers should be supplied with these drugs. In the case of medicine, that conflict was evident. To date, the farmers have largely won that battle. They have been supplied with these drugs from wholesale pharmaceutical merchants, from seed merchants, grain growers, in the case of fungicides and weedicides, and from various sorts of people. There have been situations where extraordinarily low rates of profit were taken. The ordinary spraying was at all times regarded as, if not a wholesale, then certainly a retail commodity. The farmer got his sprays and so on, at wholesale or retail shop prices.

It may well be that our regulations may find us in the hands of people who have a valid argument as to why such low rates of profit should not continue or in the case of veterinary surgeons why such poisons should not be supplied to the ordinary layman. The farmers are wisely and safely using these poisons. There have been very few cases of misuse. I know of one contact weed killer which, when you are overcome by the fumes, has an antidote known to us all as whiskey which some people enjoy and they are not dismayed at being overcome by the fumes. These dangers are known to farmers and the sprays, fungicides and weedicides are used with care.

In Section 14, the Minister takes power to regulate to whom these things will be sold and how they will be stored. I should have no objection to the large wholesaler of these commodities being regulated, but there is not much hope in the case of the man I referred to, the spraying contractor, the small farmer who tries to make extra money by keeping a sprayer for contract or perhaps the large farmer who has a sprayer for his own use and goes on contract to spray his neighbours' crops. He will find it difficult to keep a store, to keep a record and to keep the regulations. If that type of man is constrained by the Minister for Health to do these things, he may find himself in court.

My impression would be that, in relation to agricultural fungicides weedicides and medicines, this Poisons Bill could be administered in a lax fashion rather than in accordance with the letter of the law. I mean no disservice to the chemists or veterinary surgeons in what I have said. There is no case whatever, for instance, for the Minister—if he were so unwise as to do so—to make a regulation that pulpy kidney vaccine which is a poison should be sold only to veterinary surgeons or chemists when the practice at the moment is for every farmer's son to buy his pulpy kidney vaccine from wholesale pharmaceutical merchants and to inject every lamb born on the farm with it.

That is no case at all for the insistence that the contact weed killer I mentioned should be sold only through chemists or through persons who keep records or keep a store of sprayers. Spraying contractors have up to the moment been enjoying the supply of these goods at perhaps a profit to those who supply them of 10 per cent. whereas the lowest profit all those sprays and weedicides takes into account is 10 per cent. plus another 33? per cent. So the Minister, in the application of this Bill and in its passage through this House would want to be extremely careful that those things that are enjoyed should be preserved.

We may look forward to further issues of new fungicides, weedicides and medicines. I could imagine a situation on the Council whereby the representatives of the medical practitioners could take a line that these new preparations should be sold only to them. Of course, even though the Minister has met the request of the National Farmers' Association in bringing up the number of farmers' representatives to two, those representatives would find themselves in a minority and the Minister might find himself with a recommendation from the Council that certain new medicines, fungicides and weedicides should not be supplied direct to farmers from wholesale houses. In that regard, it is necessary that the Minister should be careful. While saying all that, I think we on this side of the House should welcome the Bill as it is a natural consequence of the change in the times.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

This is a very simple Bill and one which is to be supervised by the Minister for Health to safeguard the human subject. I deprecate the attacks which have been made in the other House and the criticism of the present system by the National Farmers' Association. Senator Donegan has introduced the same note here.

Mr. Donegan

No.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I hope it will not develop. While any new medicine that is not in use at present or medicines that are in use at present and are not a danger to the human subject will not in any way be restricted by this new legislation, the atmosphere was created that something new was being brought in requiring much consideration where the farmers are concerned. As such, I think the attitude was all wrong. The discussion in the Dáil which lasted over several days was entirely out of order, to my mind.

There is also the question of sprays. There are hormone sprays and other chemical sprays which I do not think have yet come to be regarded as a danger to the human subject, Some could come on the market which could be a danger and it is only from that point of view that the body to be set up by the Minister would deal with the matter. If they are dangerous in their application by inhalation by or contact with the member of the community dispersing such weed killers by mechanical means, through his own efforts, or by machinery, it is very reasonable to ensure that the human subject is not endangered by these things.

Reference was made to the treatment of animals with dangerous drugs. These come within the ambit of the Bill only if they are a danger to the human administering them. They might be a danger to the veterinary surgeon himself, but to say that a farmer is debarred from using these substances because he is treating his own animals is surely wrong. That is all I have to say on the Bill except I welcome it as being necessary. It is a simple Bill designed to safeguard the human subject in the administration of any of these poisonous drugs.

Mr. Murphy

I welcome this Bill and I listened with interest to what the Minister said when introducing the Second Reading. He said the main purpose of the Bill is to safeguard the people, their lives and their health. To assist him to do that work, he is setting up what he terms a broadly-based advisory body and the Bill goes into a lot of detail setting up and providing for representation of various interests on this advisory body. There are some 17 altogether. I am looking at it from the rather narrow point of view, it might be thought, that is, from the point of view of the people who are engaged in the use and in the distribution and transport of these dangerous goods.

The Minister referred, for example, to some liquid used in cleaning which he says is highly volatile and can be dangerous, if used in a confined space. There are other chemicals being used now in agriculture, horticulture and various other spheres, which can be dangerous to the worker and it is to the workers' interests that I want to refer. I should imagine that it would be reasonable to represent to the Minister that if he is setting up what he terms a broadly-based advisory body, he should have regard not only to the people engaged in the sale and purchase, the people who are engaged in prescribing these goods, but also to the people who come in contact with these drugs and dangerous liquids or powders, in their use. I should imagine that it would be proper that the advisory body should provide for representation for the workers who have an interest in this matter, the people engaged in the use of these commodities. I should like to hear the Minister's view on that before we come to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Cole

I support a great deal of what Senator Donegan said in regard to hoping that the Minister will not make too stringent regulations in respect of certain of these drugs or sprays which both large and small farmers use. Some of them have small contracting businesses and use these sprays which possibly are dangerous for human consumption. At the same time, to make stringent regulations would leave these farmers in a very difficult position. Considering the amount of these sprays and drugs used and the very small number of accidents we have heard about since they came into use, it is unnecessary to make any very stringent regulations. In the last ten years, since these preparations became common, perhaps most of us have heard of more accidents from such things as copper sulphate or paraffin oil than we have about children or grown-ups drinking any of these new sprays. The fact that usually they are not kept in a dwelling house also obviates risk.

I suggest to the Minister that he should not handicap farmers too much by regulations under these sections. Originally, I would have thought that the Minister would have had better councils. I would suggest a council of medical men who would deal with the drugs or poisons in relation to humans and have a separate council for the others. The medical men, as mentioned in Section 4, might not have a great deal of interest or knowledge of some of the things used for purely agricultural or veterinary purposes. I think the Minister would have a much more workable system if he had a separate council for both sections— two separate councils.

Under Section 4, I should like to see the Minister allowing some of these bodies, the Pharmaceutical Society, the dentists and so on, to nominate two members and the Minister also nominating two. I think these bodies have grown up sufficiently now, if I may put it that way, to find among their own members men who would take an interest in that side of the work. I quite agree that the Minister would like to have his own nominees also. I feel these bodies should be allowed to nominate men who they know have that interest at heart and are prepared to do this work. Apart from those points, I think the Bill is, perhaps, necessary.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to support what has been said by most of the Senators. I think it is quite obvious that this is a very carefully drafted Bill and one which is necessary for the protection of the community and protection of the farmers using the poisons to which the Bill refers.

I also think that the Minister should be complimented for the manner in which in the other House he met certain objections voiced by the National Farmers' Association, among others, to certain aspects of the Bill. If we study the amendments accepted or put down by the Minister, we will see that he has gone quite a long way to meet many of their objections. There are just two points I should like to make, nevertheless.

One is that it would be possible under Section 15 to restrict, perhaps unnecessarily, the channels through which these poisonous substances can be sold. I am not in favour of the too widespread channelling of such substances. Nevertheless, I think there is some merit in the comment of the National Farmers' Association that where there is diversity of distributing mechanism, there is also diversity which leads to price competition. I should like to hear the Minister's comment on that.

It is quite obvious that if the source of supply of these poisonous substances, weed killers, to farmers is too narrowly restricted, it might turn into something like a distribution monopoly. The House will remember that the pharmaceutical trade was, in fact, the subject of a long inquiry by the Fair Trade Commission and the Commission, in the light of certain restrictive practices which they saw, recommended the making of certain Orders by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Industry and Commerce decided not to do that. I would feel that if the source of supply were to be restricted too narrowly, particularly to a trade where there is no regulation of the price mechanism except by those engaged in the trade, possibly the farmer would suffer from the disappearance of price competition consequent upon the disappearance of the diversity of the source of supply.

The other point I should like to make is also mentioned by the National Farmers' Association. They make the point, which seems legitimate to me, that a great number of the medicines and drugs, penicillin, sulpha drugs, vitamin injections and so on, have come more and more to be used on the farm by the farmer himself, without the necessity on his part of calling in an outside expert. I think it would be a pity—I imagine the Minister would agree—if Section 15 were to be so interpreted as to admit of regulations being made which would prevent farmers from administering or applying certain common remedies on the farm themselves.

The point was made by other Senators. I feel that Section 15 ought not to be capable of that interpretation. The widespread administration of such drugs is the common practice now. I feel sure that the Minister has, in fact, no intention of interfering with that. Otherwise, I have no other comment except to welcome the Bill and the manner in which it has been drafted and amended.

Mr. L'Estrange

I think it is agreed by all that the rules and regulations governing the control and sale of poison are completely out of date and that a more modern code is necessary. We have been told that the regulations governing the sale of such poisons date back as far as 1851. I welcome the sections of the Bill which deal with the sale of tranquillisers or "pep" pills. We all know the bad effect they can have on people, especially young people. Unfortunately, they are being freely sold in this country at the present time. I think the Minister himself displayed his own anxiety in the Dáil on 23rd November, 1960, volume 185, column 70 when he stated:

I mentioned here before, it is my intention, if the Bill becomes law, at an early date to refer certain drugs which are supposed to have a tranquillising effect to the Comhairle for advice.

I think the Minister will have the full backing of this House in any action he takes in that direction to help save at least some of our young people from moral degradation. Unfortunately, some of our young people are following and aping what is taking place in London and other cities across the water.

I also welcome the provisions of the Bill which make up-to-date regulations as regards poisonous sprays, weed killers and so on which are now freely used by farmers and other people. I think everyone of us will welcome this Bill in so far as it provides a safeguard for our people. No matter what Senator Ó Donnabháin says, I still have my doubts about the section which deals with the sale and use by farmers of veterinary remedies which can be termed poisons under this Bill.

I should be very grateful if the Minister could give us the same assurance as Senator Ó Donnabháin has given. I think the people in this House are free to criticise this Bill or any other Bill that is introduced. This is the place to point out any danger which we may see in this or any other Bill that may be introduced by this Government or any other Government. Many farmers and many farmers' organisations fear that, when this Bill becomes law, the Minister may, by regulation, impose restrictions on the sale by chemists to farmers of many veterinary drugs and treatments which are now freely available to our farmers or farmers' sons. Such a move on the part of the Government would constitute one of the most retrograde steps ever taken in relation to animal husbandry.

Does the Minister consider that the modern farmer, who has adapted himself to operating most complicated machinery, is incapable of injecting the commonplace animal vaccines and drugs with a simple syringe? Subsection (2) (a) of Section 15 prohibits:

the application or administration of poisons or particular poisons for agricultural or veterinary purposes or particular agricultural or veterinary purposes otherwise than by methods or processes specified in the regulations and subject to safeguards and precautions specified in the regulations and may prohibit specified methods or processes of application or administration of poisons,

There is no doubt that under that section the Minister has far-reaching power. He can prohibit the sale of drugs or poisons to farmers, and he can also specify who is to administer them. It could be specified that no one can administer certain drugs except a veterinary surgeon. That is a serious matter so far as the farmers are concerned.

Section 17 provides:

A person who contravenes a regulation under this Act shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day on which the offence is continued, or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine or fines and such imprisonment.

Henceforward, a farmer who does not comply with the regulations which may be made by the Minister can be brought to court and fined a sum not exceeding £100, or at the discretion of the court, sentenced to a term not exceeding six months in jail.

When the Minister was questioned in Dáil Éireann on 21st March, 1961, he did not deny that. At column 944, volume 187 of the Official Report he said:

I doubt if any district justice would impose that for a breach of such a regulation.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: Would he have the power to do so?

Mr. MacEntee: Yes, but the whole virtue of responsibility rests in the fact that it will be reasonably discharged. I assume our district justices are not going to act unreasonably or if they do, we might have them examined under the Mental Treatment Act and consign them to a place where they may be cured.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: And their answer is that the Minister for Health gave them the authority.

The authority is there to give them six months in Mountjoy, but the Minister points out that the responsibility rests with the district justice: he need not do it, and if he does, he should be examined as a mental patient. If the Minister thinks that, why include the rules and regulations in the Bill?

We are prepared to agree with the regulations which control the use of poisonous materials for agricultural purposes, because we all know there are poisonous sprays which, unless used with special care and special precautions, may cause damage to human life and to beasts. They may also cause damage to crops and we know they may cause damage to wild fowl. They may be blown across hedges on a wild or breezy day and cause damage to the health of neighbours whose cows may have come in contact with the crops, or have eaten the crops after the wind had blown these poisonous substances across the hedges. I entirely agree that there should be rules and regulations pointing out the dangers and controlling them as far as possible.

We agree that the Minister for Agriculture, who is responsible for the general care and welfare of agriculture, should have power to control the use of dangerous and poisonous sprays which, as I said, can do so much harm, but we do not believe the Minister should have the power that is vested in him under Section 15. Poisons used for veterinany purposes can be considered under two heads. They are used for the routine preventive dosing of cattle, sheep or pigs or they are used to cure the animals. We all know that it is now a routine practice of modern animal husbandry to employ a very wide range of preventive injections and doses. They are essential for the control of liver fluke, braxy, lamb dysentery, black leg, warbles in cattle, etc. They are used in the case of contagious abortion and other diseases every day, I think, and a number of them are administered by the farmers themselves.

Mr. Carter

I do not think any of the medicines mentioned by the Senator come within the category of poisonous substances.

Mr. L'Estrange

They are referred to as poisonous substances in the Bill. Under Section 15, the Minister can specify who is to sell them, to whom they may be sold and who is to administer them.

Mr. MacEntee

That is not in Section 15. What the Senator is saying is not in Section 15. There is, in fact, a very definite reservation in the last subsection of Section 15 which says that orders or regulations will not extend to the sale of poisonous substances or particular poisons.

Mr. L'Estrange

You were asked in the Dáil to accept an amendment by Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the Opposition, to exclude the words "veterinary medicines" and you refused to do so. So long as that provision is there, you have the power to control the sale of these substances, and when this body is set up, they will have power to recommend to you— you may not be the Minister then; we do not know who may be Minister——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator must address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Carter

Especially in the third person, not in the first person.

Mr. L'Estrange

I said the present Minister may not be Minister then. There may be some other person. We may perhaps have a veterinary surgeon Minister for Health at some time. The power is there and so long as the power is there, the danger is there. I fail to see why a restriction on the use of poisons for veterinary purposes should be specifically set out in this Bill, including power to make regulations prohibiting, restricting and controlling the use of these poisons.

In the Dáil on 21st March last the Minister refused to agree to an amendment proposed by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins. The proposal was in Section 15 (1) (b) lines 34 and 35 to delete "and veterinary" and in lines 37 and 38 to delete "or veterinary". That was refused. A vote was taken and the amendment was defeated. The apprehension rightly entertained by the agricultural community so long as those words are there is that gradually we will be faced with regulations which will in effect put an obligation on the farmer to consult or to hire a veterinary surgeon in all cases in which he wishes to use one of these medicines. The cost of doing that would be simply prohibitive. The only result would be that many farmers would perhaps let their cattle or sheep or pigs die without having them properly attended to.

I am perfectly satisfied that, with modern livestock husbandry practices, nothing should be done to restrict the right of the modern farmer to treat his livestock with any of those drugs. They are doing it for a long time and I think they have been doing it very successfully. If the Minister and the Government had agreed in the Dáil to delete the word "veterinary," a great deal of the legitimate apprehension of the agricultural community would have been removed. But the Minister refused.

Competition is the life of trade. If they are confined to a few people to sell or if only veterinary surgeons are allowed to purchase them, then, in the treatment of cattle, the cost will be much more to the farmer. If he has to go to the veterinary surgeon, a diagnosis will cost him 10/- or 15/-. Then, if the veterinary surgeon must go out to administer the drug, that will cost the farmer another £2 or two guineas. In many cases, the farmer can do that himself.

A distinguished member of the veterinary profession has estimated that the loss of livestock in Ireland from treatment by "do-it-yourselves" farmers, as they have been referred to recently by veterinary surgeons, represents about £1½ million. Recently in the Farmers' Journal the veterinary surgeons said nobody should be allowed to use any of those drugs but veterinary surgeons; that the chemist should not be allowed to sell those drugs to farmers; that the veterinary surgeons should have the exclusive use of them. If there is a loss of £1½ million per annum through farmers treating the cattle themselves, it seems an enormous figure but, even if it is correct, let us look at it from the farmers' side.

There are approximately 400,000 farmers in Ireland. Should their routine veterinary supplies be withdrawn from their medicine chest, a farmer would be more than lucky if he had not to call on the veterinary surgeon at least five or six times in the year. Let us take that figure, for the moment. That would cost the farmer £10. This would leave the farming community to foot an unnecessary veterinary surgeons bill of £4 million which I would consider a minimum figure to prevent a theoretical loss of roughly £1½ million as we are told by the veterinary surgeons themselves.

Some Senators may say that the chemists are not trained to diagnose animal diseases and that this is the sphere of the veterinary surgeon. That has been stated by some of our veterinary surgeons in letters to the papers since this Bill was first mooted. The average farmer is very well versed and very "well up" as regards the majority of diseases. The majority of chemists are competent to discuss the various drugs for animal ailments. The farmer can diagnose a complaint and treat it with medicines purchased from the chemist. That is happening to-day and is proving very successful.

Well over 90 per cent of our farmers now find they can successfully inject cattle and sheep against all the different diseases I mentioned before such as blackleg, pulpy kidney and so on. They can treat many diseases with antibiotics and the modern drugs at a great saving in expense. I remember some years ago before penicillin and other drugs first came on the market. If a farmer had trouble with a cow calving or a ewe lambing, he had to get the veterinary surgeon. When injecting a vaccine the veterinary surgeon would keep his hand on the label of the bottle and that visit would cost the farmer £2 or two guineas. Now that we have penicillin and the ordinary drugs, the farmer can do that job himself at a cost of no more than 2/- or 2/6 a dose.

Perhaps we ought to leave that subject now.

Mr. O'Reilly

I had not intended to make a lengthy statement on this but the position is that it has been rather drawn out of me. I was annoyed by the attempt to raise a storm and make the farming community think that their interests were being seriously jeopardised. I am prepared to state there is no such intention at all either under Section 15 or under any other section of this Bill.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

Poisonous substances, their sale and distribution, should certainly be dealt with in a Bill such as this. However, I say that the sale of drugs commonly used by the farming community should not be restricted by any Bill. We have at the present time a number of poisons in every farm household and farmyard. There are weedkillers and fungicides, gallons of which are lying around everywhere. Sometimes if the weather is not favourable for putting them out, they are kept; and sometimes also you have to wait over until the following year.

There are medicines and drugs used by the farmers in their everyday work. Of late years, a large number of farmers are able to inject their cattle and sheep with the various drugs. They do that not once or twice but even three times a day. At the moment the veterinary profession are very busily engaged on the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Accordingly, they are not available at all times when the farmers need them. Sometimes they might not be available for hours or even days. The position of the farmer in those circumstances can easily be appreciated. I would ask the Minister to be as lenient as possible and ensure that the farming community will be able to get the drugs they need from the sources from which they have got them all the time. I have not heard any serious complaints about the use of those drugs.

Mr. MacEntee

I like to be sympathetic with the point of view expressed by Senator O'Sullivan, that is to say, that no restriction should be imposed on the sale or distribution of any poisonous substance which might be used by a farmer—I do not think I am misrepresenting the Senator. But think what that means.

I referred in my opening speech to the Arsenic Act, 1851. Arsenic is used by farmers, I think, to quite a considerable extent. It is subject, however, to restrictions upon its sale, restrictions which were at one time regarded as fairly drastic. Am I to repeal the Act of 1851 and abolish all restriction upon the sales of arsenic? The Act of 1851, as is well-known was not passed until it had been demonstrated that there was good ground for controlling the sale and distribution of that particular poisonous substance. The new synthetic substances are much more virulent and much more venomous poisons are coming on the market almost daily. Are we to say—whether they are tranquillisers or otherwise—that they are to be freely bought and sold, without any control or restriction whatever? I think from the point of view of the protection and safeguading of human life—and surely we are going to put human beings above all the animals—it is essential, in the interests of the protection of the ordinary good citizen, that the sale and distribution of these substances should be controlled under the aegis of the Minister for Health.

A very terrifying picture was painted by Senator L'Estrange as to what was to be the fate of the farmers under Section 15. The Senator quoted liberally from a speech which I made elsewhere. I hope he will forgive me if I quote from the Bill now before the House and which he is supposed to have read. There is not one word in Section 15 empowering the Minister for Agriculture, who is the Minister concerned, to prohibit or control the sale of poisons or particular poisons where they are used for agricultural or veterinary purposes. There is not one word to that effect. On the contrary, in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of that section, there is an express prohibition against the making of any order or any regulation under that section to control the sale of poisons. Paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of section 15 reads:—

Provide for matters ancillary to the foregoing matters other than the prohibition or control of the sale of poison or particular poisons.

The whole case which Senator L'Estrange has been making was based on the contrary assumption that under Section 15 power was given to control or prohibit the sale of poisons. There is not, as I have pointed out, one word to justify that assumption.

Let us get back to the question of the regulation, control and use of poisons. As Senator O'Donnabháin reminded the House, the purpose of this Bill is to safeguard the health of the people. It is for the protection of the good citizen against the misuse of these poisonous substances. It is not to restrict their lawful use but to make certain that, if they are used, they will be used under conditions that will ensure there is no danger to the user, and that they are not used to the deteriment of the life or health of any individual including, of course, the person using them.

Senator L'Estrange said that every drug may be a danger to human beings, if not properly handled. I will not assent to such a sweeping statement as that. I will say that in the case of drugs which might be a source of danger to the life of any person handling them, and that includes farmers, the regulations to be made under the Bill will lay down the safe method for using them and will ensure that they can be used without, as I said, detriment or danger to the person using them or to his neighbour, his neighbour's children, or even his neighbour's stock. Is there anything unreasonable in saying that if the Minister for Agriculture—because it is the Minister for Agriculture who will be concerned in a matter of this sort— wants to do that, he should be given power and authority under the law to make the necessary regulations?

In what I have said, I think I have dealt with the points raised by Senator Sheehy Skeffington who feared that, under Section 15, there might be a possibility of restricting the sale of these substances to a too narrow channel. Let me repeat that there is nothing in Section 15 empowering the Minister to make regulations prohibiting the sale of any poisonous substances. I hope that any misunderstandings in relation to that matter have been dispelled.

Senator Donegan said that he trusted the Bill would be administered with consideration and not too rigorously. This is not an administrative Bill. It is a Bill empowering the Minister to make regulations. Naturally, he will have to decide for himself, first of all, whether the substance is at any stage of such a poisonous nature that its use and general distribution throughout society should be controlled. That is the first thing he has to determine. The next thing is, of course, that if he comes to that decision, he may by regulation declare it to be such. The regulation is then subject to certain scrutiny. Naturally, if he decides that the substance is poisonous and has to be regulated and controlled, he will by regulation prescribe the manner in which that control is to be exercised. Once he has done that, he has then to submit that draft regulation to the Council to be established under this Bill, a Council in which he must have confidence.

This Council is not an elected body representative of any vested interest. That is the first thing about which I want the Seanad to be quite clear. This body is not set up in order to give representation to any vested interest. It is set up to place at the disposal of the Minister the advice of people who are supposed to be particularly skilled —experts, so to speak—in the various aspects of the use, sale and distribution of these poisonous substances. Nothing at that Council will be decided by vote. What the Council has to do is to bring its common wisdom to bear on the problems presented to it when the Minister submits the draft regulation. The Council must consider the draft regulation to see whether it requires to be amended in any way, and if the regulation would seem to make it unreasonably difficult to utilise that substance in industry, or in agriculture, or for medicinal purposes, a common agreement will be reached, having regard to all the difficulties, as to what is the best way to ensure that the substance, if used, will be used with the greatest degree of safety for all those who are likely to come in contact with it or require it.

That is what the Council will do. Because there are so many representatives of the medical profession on it and so many representatives of the pharmaceutical society on it, that does not mean that they will be appointed to be members of that Council by the Minister in order to load the Council or give it a bias in any particular way. As we all know, in pharmacy, there are many special lines. There is the pharmaceutical chemist who is engaged in the manufacture of drugs, and there is the pharmaceutical chemist who is engaged in the teaching of pharmacy, rather than in an active pursuit of pharmacy as a method of earning his living. The same applies to other types of persons who will be on the Council. The Council is being selected in order that these people may bring their particular degree of skill and knowledge and experience to the common service, so to speak, of the Comhairle as a whole, for the purpose of giving the Minister balanced criticism and balanced judgment upon any proposal he may submit to it.

Moreover, if the Minister makes a regulation, that is not the last word. Every regulation to be made, whether under Section 14 or Section 15, must be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. If any person thinks that a regulation which is proposed to be made under Section 15, for instance, is likely to be harsh and oppressive on those farmers who have to use the substance with which the regulation is concerned, then it is open to him, or to Senator L'Estrange, for instance, or to any person who feels called upon to protest on behalf of the farmers in relation to that regulation, to move in the Seanad or the Dáil, as the case may be, that the regulation be annulled.

When a motion of that sort is made before either House, the Minister concerned must make the case for the regulation. Now I submit that it is unlikely that the Minister for Agriculture would make any regulation in relation to any poison which would be harsh or oppressive, so far as the agricultural users of the substance are concerned. Ministers for Agriculture always place the interests of the farmers first. The Minister will have no concern with, no regard for, and no interest in any drug firm or any branch of the pharmaceutical or other profession engaged in the handling, or sale, or development of drugs. His concern will be the well-being of the farming community.

My concern will be the well-being of human beings. The concern of the Minister for Health will be the welfare and protection of the human beings who constitute our society. The Minister for Health, whoever he may be, may feel called upon to make a regulation which, indirectly or at some distance removed, might hinder or hamper or inconvenience the farmers in the pursuit of their avocation. That aspect of the proposed regulation, of course, will be discussed by the Council. Again, those who have knowledge of farming—and they are not confined to those who derive their livelihood directly or principally from agriculture; there are many others who will be as concerned about the farmers' point of view as the farmers themselves—will be able to amend the regulation in such a way as to minimise to the utmost extent possible any inconvenience or hardship which may be imposed upon the farmer by any draft regulation.

That is how I visualise this Council working. As I say, the last word in the case of any regulation does not lie with the Minister. It lies with both Houses who will have the right to examine and criticise any regulation which has been made and, if necessary, if their case is a sound one, they will undoubtedly be able to influence the Minister to amend it. That is what the Bill proposes to do. I think the fears which have been expressed by Senator L'Estrange, Senator Donegan and Senator O'Sullivan will, in fact, be found to be baseless.

Senator Murphy said we had many representatives upon this proposed council. He said there would be representatives of various occupations and various skills but that no representation had been given to labour, per se. I do not think it is necessary. There is not anything which particularly distinguishes a person who is a trade unionist from a person who happens to be in a position of doctor or farmer in a matter of this sort. The purpose of these regulations is to protect every section and every element in the community, irrespective of their stated profession or occupation.

I am perfectly certain that the medical element on the Council, and with them everybody else on it, will be as concerned to ensure that wage earners, whether engaged in the drug trade or not, will not be put at undue risk by the use or employment of any poisonous substance. It can be taken that among those who may be nominated as coming within the last category, that is, of persons who do not possess the special knowledge and skills which are prescribed to be possessed by any of those coming within the more specific other categories will include—it may be taken as almost axiomatic—a person who will be engaged in the handling of these drugs in the course of his ordinary occupation.

Senator Cole asked why I do not allow the Pharmaceutical Society or the College of Physicians to make their own nominations. I do not do so for the reason I have mentioned. This is not a body which will be representative of any vested interest. It is a body set up to advise the Minister. The Minister must be free to select his own advisers, provided they fulfil certain qualifications.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Apr 1961

Poisons Bill, 1960—Second Stage.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 1961