As amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related, I suggest they be taken together.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 9:
To delete subsection (6).
I want to be helpful here. My amendment is to delete subsection (6). Section 2 gives the Minister power to add drugs to any one of the categories or to shift the drug from one category to the other or delete it, to take it out of the scope of the Bill altogether. It is a very good section. It is a very, very, flexible instrument. It gives the Minister the right amount of flexibility in approach. Subsection (6) however, says that when the Minister wishes to make an order under this section a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each such House. I think that is far too restrictive. I think the Minister's hands would be tied. He could not move unless the Houses were sitting and so on. The purpose of my amendment is to delete that and if we delete that, the orders under section 2 come under the general provisions of the Bill, which means that they become operative when laid before the Houses and are only upset if the Houses upset them.
Amendment No. 10 like amendment No. 9 is to give the Minister power so that he can move very quickly. I am in total agreement with Deputy Haughey to give him the power to move quickly and that the temporary order, or any order, shall remain in force for a period of 90 days and a resolution approving the order to be passed by each House of the Oireachtas. I would withdraw this if the Government had the power Deputy Haughey referred to.
I am surprised at this because I was operating on the system that has been employed in restrictive regulations and orders that are made in respect of the various Acts of Parliament passed since I became a Member here. I have heard objections from both sides of the House to the effect that orders should not be made just like that, and put into force like that, unless the Dáil had an opportunity of approving the order. I certainly welcome what the Deputy said. He said he would give the Government more freedom to change the categories, to delete, to add, to switch or to take from. What I see in subsection 6 is a defect or an omission. It states that the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House. It is too cumbersome and another deficiency is that it does not define any time during which it may be approved or rejected.
If some Member of the House objects to something in category (1) being put into category (2) what opportunity has he of raising an objection?
If the Minister deletes subsection (6), as I suggest, the order could be brought in under subsection (3) of section 35.
That is correct.
And it follows the normal procedure. Subsection (3) of section 35 states:
Every regulation made under this Act and every order made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation or order is passed by either such House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the regulation or order is laid before it, the regulation or order, as the case may be, shall be annulled accordingly——
The House has its rights.
I would be opposed to the deletion of this. It is very important to have some restrictions on the power of the Minister or the Government in a matter like this. For instance, some bad mistakes were made in the Schedules and if this had been made by order we would have had no comeback or protection.
We would have a comeback.
There would be greater protection by leaving this here. I do not think it is going to tie the hands of any Minister or any Government. The matter will not be that urgent that it cannot be held over.
We had an unfortunate instance here in relation to a drug and it was some time before it was taken off the market.
What drug?
Diconal.
It is back on.
There was a time when it was taken off.
Taking it off was a foolhardy act.
As the Bill is phrased if you leave in subsection (6) and some very dangerous drug comes on the market which has not been there before, the Minister could not do anything about that right through the whole number summer months. He would have to wait until the House sat again and get an order through the Dáil to put it into one of the categories. Whereas, in the other way he can make the order and the new order must then be confirmed by the House.
Would my amendment 10 take account of that point?
The Deputy is on the same point as I am only mine deals with drafting. If we delete subsection (6) it goes under section 35 (3).
If we deleted subsection (6) and included the subsection I suggested it would cater for that point; it gives the Minister 90 days.
The word used in section 35 is " Regulation ".
Or order.
It is equally clear in relation to section 6 that there is no specific time limit relevant to resolutions.
Under section 6 he cannot withdraw a drug until he has permission to withdraw it from the House. My amendment would enable the Minister to withdraw the drug for 90 days, with complete freedom, before going before the House.
Would the Minister envisage a debate under section 6 of the Bill as it stands or would it be a matter of just informing the House of the position?
If a counter resolution was put down it might lead to a debate.
When an order under this section is proposed to be made, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
If the Minister wanted to use his authority rapidly he could be held up, as suggested, by the House, whereas under the other system he could wait the 21 days.
Either way the House can review it. The Minister will have the authority to act immediately when necessary and that is vital.
Is there protection under any other section in a case like that?
Could we ask the Minister to have another look at section 2 (6) before Report Stage?
The legislation includes the two Schedules. The Attorney General's view is to the effect that we cannot, by order, alter legislation as such without the approval of the House. I can see the difficulties that have been mentioned here if we adjourn in the month of July and in the following two or three months a new drug not included in the Schedule comes on the market.
There is adequate provision for this.
There are numerous ways where one could change regulations by order of the Minister.
There is adequate protection.
The Deputy wants me to delete subsection (6) and give the Government permission to declare a new substance to be contrary to the Bill?
Subject to approval by the House later.
With regard to any new drug or any product like that there is adequate protection under another Act to deal with it. I feel very strongly about this and I definitely oppose the deletion of that subsection.
What other Act?
Is there not a Poisons Act? We are talking about any drug that can be controlled largely without this.
Does amendment No. 10 satisfy everyone?
The procedure whereby a Minister makes an order under statute lays it before the House and unless it is annulled by resolution of the House retains its legal status, is by far the most common practice. To bring in subsection (6) it to depart from the common practice to which we are all accustomed. It is ridiculous and certainly unwise in the case of the situation we are dealing with, the question of getting drugs under control perhaps instantaneously.
It can be argued that only the Houses of the Oireachtas can reverse the order of such schedules. Even if the Minister was to have power to make an order——
This is the difficulty. The change in the law by regulation 2 provides against something, say, for example, when the Dáil is not in session.
And there is the complication in the sense that I regard subsection 6 as defective because it does not have a time limit. For example, the resolution relating to the Dáil salaries has to be before the House for 21 days. There is no specific period in this section.
How do you reconcile section 35 with subsection (6)? This is inconsistent.
What we are talking about in section 2 are draft Government orders, not orders already made.
Could you add to the Bill by putting in a section giving the Minister power by regulation to add to the Schedule?
Every day of the week we pass legislation to change legislation by order.
That is what I fear.
If we can do it for growing potatoes we can do it for something as important as controlling drugs.
I think it is fraught with danger, with respect to handing a Government power——
The danger I see is that where a drug is recognised by the Minister as being dangerous, such as thalidomide, he would at once be able to take that off by immediately declaring it illegal and then get on with the business of making the order before the House. I do not care how long it takes. Once he is satisfied that something is dangerous, he must immediately declare it illegal.
We have that power already.
That is why I think we should not deal——
There is the danger here all the time that the basic terminology of the formulae of many of these drugs can be altered minutely by addition, or extraction, of one or two small elements. On the other hand, it would not be——
They might not be related to the misuse of drugs.
——here on this. The Minister could find himself, in June and July, with morphine coming in with an additive which is not defined here.
He has these powers under the Poisons Act.
He has not.
He can make it a controlled drug under the Poisons Act.
If the Minister has power to make the order under the Poisons Act, what is wrong with him having the power under this Act?
If it comes under the Poisons Act you can then have it brought up and you argue the basic question in the Dáil. If you take that power away from the Dáil, it is a very dangerous matter.
I want to make the point about other legislation, the Poisons Act or others, do not meet our wishes in regard to this Bill. There are all sorts of provisions in this Bill governing controlled drugs. The Minister is trying to make all sorts of regulations about controlled drugs, which have nothing to do with the Poisons Act and are not covered in the Poisons Act. For purposes of this matter, we must consider what this Bill enables us to do in regard to controlling them. You cannot rely on the Poisons Act.
Section 5 lays down all sorts of things in connection with drugs which the Minister can do once it comes within the ambit of this Bill. It is no good relying on the Poisons Act to do these things. He might want to bring them immediately within the ambit of this Bill.
Amendment No. 10 takes in practically all that from a practical point of view.
There are counter arguments. There seems to be validity on both sides. The Attorney-General believes that this would be a regulation or order to change legislation and examples have been shown where the regulations and orders have been legitimate. I will talk again to the Attorney General to try to meet the viewpoint that has been expressed by Deputy Haughey, Deputy Byrne, and Deputy O'Connell with regard to the urgency with which the matter must be tackled and whether it is advisable to have an order placed before the House and if there should be a time limit.
That is fair enough. Despite what Deputy O'Connell says, the other powers under the other Act are not sufficient in this regard, because this Bill sets out to do all sorts of things in regard to drugs—controlling their importation and so on—which are not relevant to the other Acts.
We have a fair amount of powers controlling the manufacture and importation of drugs.
You must be setting out these powers in section 5 because you want and need them. If you already had them you would not be setting them out in section 5. You are setting them out in section 5 because they are powers that you want in regard to these drugs.
They are already there.
The Minister has given a clear undertaking. We can adjourn our debate on the basis that he will consult with the Attorney General and have another look at subsection (6).
I would not be happy with any provision other than that the Minister would have power to act under this legislation.
Swiftly.
Beware you do not give too much power to Ministers and Governments.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Committee adjourned at 6.00 p.m. until 4.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd December, 1975.