Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 1960

Vol. 180 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1960—Committee Stage.

Question proposed: That Section 1 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to ask the Minister a question on this section if I may. He may remember that two questions arose very specifically on the Second Stage, one relating to textiles, the other relating to tablets. There is an amendment down to the Schedule relative to the tablets, which will provide an opportunity of further discussion on that specific point, but the point was raised on the Second Stage that under the system designed for the protection of a certain branch of the textile industry, a practice exists whereunder a domestic distributor or manufacturer of readymade goods is allowed to import free of duty so many yards of cotton textiles in certain categories, provided he purchases from a domestic manufacturer, not an identical, but a corresponding quantity of cotton textiles. In regard to some categories he may bring in five yards, if he purchases two at home. In regard to others, he may bring in perhaps three yards, if he purchases one.

The point was put to the Minister that it had been suggested to us that under that arrangement, quite apart from any conditions imposed by him in the licences issued by him or by the Revenue Commissioners in licences issued by them, the domestic producer, when approached for the two yards or the three yards the importer was required to purchase from him in order to get his duty-free licence, imposed a condition himself that the purchase of the domestic cotton cloth must be made through one named agent.

The Minister, commenting on that, said certainly there was no such condition in any licences issued by him and it was then explained very clearly that there was no question of that, that the question was: were individual manufacturers imposing conditions of that character and, if so, should the Minister not take steps in his licence to ensure that no such conditions were imposed and that a person who is obliged to purchase cotton textiles from a domestic manufacturer shall be free to purchase them through any agent, if he is required to employ agents at all, or, better still, that he shall be entitled to purchase them from the factory direct, always provided, of course, that he tendered cash or that he was in a position to produce a satisfactory credit record.

Perhaps the Minister has had an opportunity of looking into that matter and, if so, perhaps he could reassure us that unauthorised restrictive covenants of that kind are not being employed under the protection of licences issued by him.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

I am afraid I cannot give the Deputy any information further than I gave the last day. He may remember that I asked Deputy Sweetman on that occasion to give me particulars. Deputy Sweetman did mention to me verbally the name of the firm and I caused inquiries to be made at once. I have not yet got the result of those inquiries but as soon as I have them, I shall communicate with the Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister agree in principle that such conditions would not be proper conditions to lay down under the restrictions created by a licence issued by him? Clearly, the whole tendency of Oireachtas Éireann is to avoid monopolies and, therefore, if a licence issued by the Minister were being used by a domestic manufacturer for the purpose of promoting a monopoly of that character, I take it the Minister would direct that steps be taken to prevent it?

Mr. J. Lynch

To an extent, that is a hypothetical question because the cotton cloth to which the Deputy refers is not made by one firm only. There is an alternative source of supply. However, the question of the operation of a restrictive practice, of which the Deputy complained, if I could divorce it from the issue of licences to import a certain yardage of cloth is a matter rather for a Fair Trade Commission inquiry. I am not commenting in principle at this stage until I get more information concerning the practice of which complaint is made.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister, if he wanted to, could quite easily have found out since last week what the circumstances were in relation to this firm. It could have been done quite easily. Telephonic communication is reasonably speedy, and the Minister is guilty of a breach of faith in coming to the House and putting down this Bill for discussion on Committee Stage to-day without having the information. On the Second Reading the Minister asked for the name of the firm. He got the name from me there and then in the House.

Mr. J. Lynch

I have said so.

Mr. Sweetman

There was a clear implication that the Minister would not ask for the Committee Stage of the Bill until he had armed himself with the proof as to whether or not the statement I made was accurate. I have since inquired and I am satisfied beyond question that it is accurate, that in fact, because of the way the licences work, no one can import any of these articles for which proof of home sales is required without going to the single agent of the factory concerned, that single agent being in this city in Wicklow Street.

I satisfied myself beyond question on that point and the Minister should not make an Order under the powers contained in the parent Act unless he makes it a condition that the manufacturing concern for whose benefit the Order is being made gives him an undertaking that there will be no monopoly, gives him an undertaking that one person will not be the sole channel through which people can get imports of other similar materials.

In certain respects this manufacturing company is the sole Irish producer of certain material which cannot be imported under the Minister's Order without the sales note being produced first of all to show that the Irish product has been bought in a certain percentage. That sales note cannot be got without a person who wants to buy the Irish cloth going through a particular agent in Wicklow Street. Surely that is contrary to everything for which all Parties in this House should stand. If the Government makes an Order the effect of which is that they hand over as a Government to someone else the power to decide what shall or shall not be imported, that they hand over to someone outside the decision as to the amount of any commodity to be imported, surely the Government have a responsibility to see that, in those circumstances, the people to whom the power is being handed over are not in a monopolistic position and are therefore not able to squeeze prospective customers and are not in a position to ensure that they, rather than the Government, can dictate terms.

The issue is clear. The issue is: if there is to be a monopoly, should it be the State that runs that monopoly or should it be some private individual? I am amazed that the Minister, in the interval from last week, did not take adequate steps to satisfy himself of the position. I am amazed that the Minister comes back to ask the House to endorse a Bill that continues to confer a monopoly on a particular firm. The circumstances in which that is done certainly reflect little credit on those concerned.

I do not know whether the Minister ever hears talk around the town. I am sure his officials who are dealing with these people who apply for licences also must have some interest in the matter and, from that interest, probably hear talk around town. The town is full of gossip about this transaction. Anybody in that trade that the Minister asks will tell him that it is becoming a matter of constant talk. The question is being constantly asked: why is there this monopoly?

Those are circumstances which should have been probed by the Minister before he came to this Committee Stage. It is obvious that on the remaining stages of the Bill there will not be the same full opportunity available to the House to make the examination that there would be on the Committee Stage. I would have far preferred that the Minister or the House would not have to rely on my assertion that these are the facts. I know that when the Minister investigates them officially he will find that I am right. It would have been far better that he had the facts of his own knowledge rather than that they should be told to him by anybody else in this House, that he knew them officially and that he had decided officially what action he would take in regard to them before he brought the Bill here on Committee Stage.

Mr. J. Lynch

I reject entirely the allegation that I am guilty of a dereliction of duty, or that my officials are.

Mr. Sweetman

I did not say a word about officials. I always attack the Minister; he is responsible.

Mr. J. Lynch

I accept responsibility for my officials in this regard. The making of this Order has nothing to do with the complaint made by the Deputy.

Mr. Sweetman

Everything.

Mr. J. Lynch

If I decide that the firm against which he made the complaint is entitled to appoint only one selling agent, I have a right to ask the House, under those circumstances, to make the Order. If, because Deputy Sweetman does not agree with the manner in which the company sells its output, he objects to the granting of certain protection, it is a matter of his own opinion. I am quite entitled to disagree with Deputy Sweetman on that issue.

Dr. Browne

Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister agreed with Deputy Sweetman and was rather shocked by the disclosure when the Deputy mentioned it?

Mr. J. Lynch

I was not aware of what he disclosed, yes, but I am entitled to adopt a different point of view. I am entitled to take a different line. Since the Deputy rose, a note has been handed to me in which there is an indication that what the Deputy has said is correct but not completely correct. There are three manufacturers of certain cotton fabrics. I do not think I should identify the fabrics in case I might identify the firms, at any rate, until I have a full opportunity of studying this document. Duty-free licences are recommended for the importation of these fabrics on a certain basis, as Deputy Dillon said. Orders for the fabrics produced by one of the firms are placed with the company's selling agency, which is in Wicklow Street, as the Deputy stated, but the confirmations of orders on which licences are based are furnished to his importer by the manufacturers themselves on their own printed forms.

In the case of the other two firms, orders for the printed fabrics are placed directly with the manufacturers. In one case, the manufacturer places the orders through one firm, as it were, and in the other case, the manufacturers receive the orders in their own factories. But there are two types of fabrics concerned. In the one case only the firm which sells its output through an agent makes the one type and in the case of the other type of fabric, all three make it.

Mr. Sweetman

But there is one type which the agent-firm alone makes?

Mr. J. Lynch

That is right. I have just said that.

Mr. Sweetman

If you want to import that fabric, you must go to that agent. You cannot go to one of the other firms.

Mr. J. Lynch

That may be the position. Nevertheless, the confirmation of an order does not necessarily mean that it is confirmed for all time. At any time, the Government may amend, vary or completely rescind an Order.

If, as a result of further inquiries by me, I decide that the practice in which this firm engages is a wrong one, undesirable in the interests of the public, I should have no hesitation in taking action to ensure that such a practice would not be persisted with, but at the moment, I suggest to the House that it is possible that the firm is justified in selling its output through a particular agent. I am not certain that there is any serious damage done to the purchasing public because the article has to be bought through one agent. If the firm itself decided not to have a distributing agent, the people entitled to purchase that fabric would go direct to the firm and therefore would have no choice. I do not see that there is any great abuse prima facie in what Deputy Sweetman complains of.

Secondly, I had no knowledge whatever of this practice until he mentioned it here. I do not move around Dublin and hear gossip among business people; I do not know very many of them, perhaps, but I have made inquiries through my officials and I am told that no complaint has been made in the Department about this practice, so that the Deputy may believe me when I say that his statement in the House last week was the first I or my officials heard about it. If the practice is wrong, and if I so decide, it can easily be remedied irrespective of the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister seems to be—perhaps deliberately—avoiding the point at issue, which is that the Government and only the Government have the right to determine what shall be imported and what shall not. If the Government hand over that right to an individual agent, that is giving an agent a monopoly which should be retained by the Government. The Government have the responsibility to ensure that when they make an Order in this case that goods cannot be brought in except under licence, they should attach to that licence a condition that a monopoly shall not be placed in any other hands.

There are two classes of fabric involved. In respect of one, there is a choice: in respect of the other, there is no choice. I think the Minister confirmed that, and I accept that he had only a moment to read the note after standing up, but the Minister will find that is the case. It applies not only to this firm. This was the only firm of which I had knowledge when I stood up last week. Since then, it has been suggested to me that this is not a practice adopted solely by one firm and that in other cases where the Minister for Industry and Commerce has handed over control in this way, handed over a monopoly, there may be a similar practice.

At this stage, I do not know enough about the other cases to mention them categorically, but as a result of the discussion last week it was suggested to me that there are other similar cases and I ask the Minister to examine the whole problem, to consider the people who are concerned and to see whether what has happened is that advantage is being taken of the method of issuing licences for imports by having so many articles imported set against the production of so many articles at home. If he does that, I think he will find that there is almost a trade growing up—so to speak—in relation to some of these import licences and that in certain cases, purchasing orders are being given and import licences obtained on foot of them when perhaps the order is not completed afterwards in the clear light of day as had been represented to the Minister.

The whole question involved here is a very simple net issue: will the Government have the monopoly of deciding what is to be imported or are the Government going to hand over, in respect of any commodity, that monopoly to a private individual? I think that if the Minister makes inquiries, he will find there are other cases and that these Orders should not really be confirmed until the proper course has been taken. The proper course is to refuse to make a control Order until he has an undertaking that there will be full and adequate steps taken in each case to prevent a monopoly, whether in the case of the particular concern I have mentioned, or in any other case I have mentioned in private to the Minister, or in any other case at all. That can be done quite simply and the Minister should not come in here asking for confirmation of the Order until he has made it clear that he proposes to avoid such monopoly as exists in this case, or may exist in any other case, where such monopoly is discreditable.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister seemed to resent the suggestion that he was open to legitimate rebuke for not being informed of this practice. I respectfully submit that he is. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce has an obligation to keep himself informed, at least to the extent of being sure that what is common gossip to-day will be known to him to-morrow should he be required to act in an official capacity in that context. I do not think that, if the Minister approached anybody trading in these textiles, with special reference to the textile in relation to which there is only one producer, he would not have got the information that has been thrust upon us. I think, too, that if he got that information and if he found that this particular monopolist was requiring all orders to be channelled through one agent in respect of the textile of which he is the unique producer and, in respect of the other two textiles in which there are three producers, one of whom was channelling all his trade through one agent, he ought to take the appropriate steps. If I were Minister for Industry and Commerce and I discovered this practice was going on under an Order made by me I would ask that an inquiry should be made as to what was at the back of this practice. If I were told: "We have received no complaints in the Department" I would be inclined to ask "Why? Is it not odd? Would it not want to be looked into? Why is there this peculiar difference in practice?"

Now that this practice has been brought into the light of day, may I, having some experience of these matters myself, urge upon the Minister that all monopolies are evil? But, where you choose to employ a system of protection, such as is enshrined in many of the Orders under this Bill, monopoly up to a point is inevitable because we have here a case in which only one firm is producing a particular cloth and the purchase of some of that cloth is a prerequisite to getting a permit to import other similar cloth without paying a prohibitive duty. It becomes quite intolerable if, on top of that monopolistic position, there is imposed on the manufacturer in Ireland a further monopoly, which says: "Not only must you provide me with a legitimate profit on the cloth I am producing but you must also provide me with a margin wherewith to provide an exclusive agent".

I think a stronger case than prima facie has been made that an abuse exists here and I would hope the Minister would feel free at some stage of this Bill to say that a practice of this kind does not commend itself to him, that it should be put an end to in this case, that, if any other such arrangements exist, they should be terminated, and that anyone seeking facilities of the kind afforded by this Imposition of Duty Order in future shall be fixed with notice that the imposition of one monopoly upon another, as is here practised, will be tolerated no longer.

Mr. J. Lynch

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I should like to say that since I became Minister for Industry and Commerce, I have marvelled at the extent of consultation there is between the officials of the Department and those engaged in trade, particularly those engaged in the textile industry. No week passes but there is consultation of some sort on some aspect of the textile trade.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I wish that principle applied to all Departments.

Mr. J. Lynch

Invariably, in any difficulty that arises either from the manufacturers' or their customers' point of view, both sides are usually well represented by organisations and they usually make representations to the Department and are heard almost at once, or certainly as soon as consultation can be arranged. Not only are they heard but it is usually arranged also that both sides, if there is a dispute, are brought together and they are asked to thrash out their problems before a Chairman, who is usually a high official of the Department, and probably one or two other officials. This Order is one of the first of these Orders in respect of which I am now seeking confirmation under this Bill, so it has been in force for several months.

Mr. Dillon

It is the second.

Mr. J. Lynch

One of the first, I said. It has been in force for several months. Not once during those months has there been any complaint in the Department. I am accepting entirely —it has been confirmed by my own inquiries—that the complaint made by Deputy Sweetman last week was true, but it is nothing short of amazing to me that the people who complained to Deputy Sweetman did not come and complain to me when I was the person who could have done something about it.

Mr. Sweetman

Do not force me now to say something I do not want to say. Is it not obvious why?

Mr. J. Lynch

Why did they not come to the Department?

Mr. Sweetman

Is it not obvious why?

Mr. J. Lynch

I do not think so.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not think the Minister made the Order?

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not make the Order.

Mr. Sweetman

It was made by his predecessor.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am quite prepared to listen to any complaints. I am still further amazed that knowledge of similar complaints has come to both Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Dillon and not a scintilla of complaint has been available to the Department. Everyone engaged in the textile trade knows he can approach the Department at any time if he has a complaint. It is a practice of the Department to bring the opposing sides into conference, if that can be arranged. That can be arranged in this case and I suggest now that those who have complained to Deputy Dillon and Deputy Sweetman should bring their complaints to the Department and, within seven days, I shall arrange a conference presided over by a senior officer of my Department and attended by those who make the complaints and those against whom the complaints are made. If, as a result of that investigation, I find that the complaints are well-founded and there is reason for action on my part, I shall not hesitate to take action. If the complaints are made to my Department to-morrow I shall do all in my power to ensure that, by to-morrow week, a conference will have been held and, if necessary, appropriate action taken.

Mr. Sweetman

What will happen about the agent? They are forced to provide for the remuneration of this agent. Does the Minister accept that is a genuine cause of complaint?

Mr. J. Lynch

I shall accept nothing until I get the evidence from the people who are complaining.

Mr. Sweetman

But the Minister has agreed.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am talking in general. I agree there is a prima facie case. I have said so. If the people who make the complaints wish to have them thrashed out, they can have them thrashed out in the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Sweetman

This is the place when the Minister brings a Bill in here.

Mr. J. Lynch

By all means, but in the Department, the details of the complaints would be understood by men who are used to handling such problems. They could bring the two parties together and find the truth and the extent to which anything wrong has been done by one of the parties. I would then be in a position to assess the merits of the case and to take appropriate action.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not understand what the Minister means. The fact is that the Minister admits these goods have to be channelled through one agent. That agent will not be expected to work for nothing and, therefore, that agent must be paid. That means the person who has to import the goods has to pay a margin to meet that cost. If the Minister accepts that is a cause of complaint, I shall produce evidence to the Minister and he will make arrangements accordingly. The people who have to pay the extra commission will have to be recouped. If the Minister will follow up his undertaking to have the complaints investigated with an assurance that he will take steps to see that refunds and repayments are made, I shall willingly take advantage of that offer.

Mr. Dillon

There is a principle involved here in respect of which I must make a reservation. I understand from the Minister that he has described the day-to-day practice appropriate for persons engaged in trade and industry who want the fullest information from his Department and that he has expressed his ready willingness to provide it to anyone who comes to look for it, but I do not think that is appropriate for members of this House. Our duty is not to bring our complaints to the Department. Our duty is to bring our complaints to Dáil Éireann and our duty, as I conceive it, is that if we have a matter to raise in Dáil Éireann, we should raise it in such form as to facilitate the Minister in preparing himself to meet it with the fullest information when he has the position assembled. There is no use in setting traps for the Minister's foot and asking him to answer about details off the cuff. That may sound easy but we all know it is quite impossible.

In this case, we took the precaution, on Second Stage, of ventilating the situation and then, at the Minister's request, after the debate, Deputy Sweetman took the occassion to give the Minister verbally the names of the firms involved. I think the Minister thereupon has responsibility to the House to come here on Committee Stage, fully informed.

The principle here involved is: is it legitimate for a monopolist producer, whose monopoly has been created by Order of the Minister, to use his position under the Minister's Order to superimpose on his own monopoly yet another monopoly and say to the public in general: "Although you must buy my goods, if you are to remain in the trade at all, I insist that you buy them through one particular agent." I believe that is a malpractice and I speak with 30 years' experience of the trade. That is a malpractice which is being operated under the protection of the Minister's Order.

I think the Minister is extremely— I shall not use the word ingenuous— unfamiliar with the ordinary ways of trade if in the face of these facts of which he now has knowledge, he says to himself: "No complaint is ever made" and does not ask himself the question: why? I ask the Minister now to cause a strict inquiry to be made into the position—I thought he would have done so between last week and to-day—and then give the directions which I imagine he will feel it his duty to give. I think he should ask how it was that he was not given this information in time to meet the case he might legitimately be called upon to meet in Dáil Éireann. The Minister ought to have that information, and when he has it, I think he will not doubt that he has a duty to act.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am prolonging the debate every time I reply. I do not suggest that Deputy Dillon is at all wrong in that principle. He is quite right, if he hears a complaint of any sort, to ventilate it here if he considers it to be his duty. There is also another principle involved, the principle of trading practice. If a firm manufactures a commodity, it is entitled to sell it directly to the consumer, or through an agent. If it sells it through an agent, it is reasonable to assume that he the agent will get some profit out of his participation in the exercise.

On the other hand, if the manufacturer decides not to sell through an agent, but to set up his own selling organisation, is it not reasonable to assume also that that fact will add a certain amount to the price of the commodity —the fact that the manufacturer himself has to have a selling organisation within his own set-up? The suggestion that the fact that there is a selling agent other then the manufacturer himself increases the cost of a commodity would not, I think, hold water. If that selling agent were not there, it is only reasonable to assume that the manufacturer would have to have some selling organisation within his own industry which would cost some money.

It is for that reason that I have stated that to the extent to which consumers of the fabric are obliged to buy through one agent, there is a prima facie case. On the other hand, I do not think anyone can deny the soundness of what I have said, that the manufacturer is entitled to have his own agent and, if not, to set up his own organisation to sell the goods. I can add nothing except to say that I invite those who have complaints in this respect to come to the Department with them and to give me the fullest details, and I shall have the conference held to which I have already referred.

Mr. Sweetman

What is the conference to be about? There is no use in having a conference about what is a fact. It is a fact that one concern— there may be more but there is at least one of which I have positive knowledge—has taken advantage of the Minister's Order to direct that business must be channelled through someone else. I do not want to say more than I have to, but I have a duty to say certain things in this House. It is perfectly obvious—and I do not believe the Minister is so naive as not to realise it, if he thinks about it for ten minutes—why no one will raise any complaint, and why we have had no complaint in this instance. No one would dare to do so because he would be afraid of being penalised afterwards.

Mr. J. Lynch

By whom?

Mr. Sweetman

By the Government acting over there. That is the reason I consider it is my duty to raise it.

Mr. J. Lynch

That is a most unfair allegation.

Mr. Sweetman

It is quite clearly——

Mr. J. Lynch

I am personally responsible for disciplinary action.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister did not make the Order.

Mr. J. Lynch

My predecessor did, and I accept responsibility for it.

Mr. Sweetman

I admire the Minister for accepting responsibility for it. His predecessor made it and he is now the Head of the Government.

Mr. J. Lynch

I realise the Government, not the Minister, make an Order.

Mr. Sweetman

But hardly against the Minister's advice. An Order is not brought to the Government to be made except at the instance of the Minister. The fact is that the remuneration of an ordinary selling agent or the remuneration of a selling department of the manufacturing organisation is the remuneration proper for pushing a line. The remuneration is based on the fact that it is necessary to push the line to get sales for it. In this case, the Government are ensuring that there must be sales. It is not a question whether factory A employs a manufacturer's agent to sell its goods or whether it sets up its own selling organisation to sell its goods in the ordinary way. In this case, the goods have to be bought. The Minister, by his Order, has determined that the goods have to be bought. Therefore, there would not be any necessity for a selling agent at the factory concerned. It would be an invoicing matter just at it would be invoiced in the ordinary way by the agent concerned.

If the Minister sits back and thinks about the details of the concern that is involved, if he makes some inquiries from friends of his in the trade—I am sure he has some friends in the trade—I believe he will be as shocked as I was to learn the whole story.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete the entry relating to the Imposition of Duties (No. 78) (Medicinal Tablets) Order, 1959.

The House is aware that this matter has been discussed on a few occasions here. This is the only opportunity for the House to deal with the Order which has given rise to criticism. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said a few moments ago that he was rather surprised at the amount of consultation that went on—I gather, die in diem—in his Department. He rather gave the impression that the Department of Industry and Commerce was unique in the fact that, in relation to any administrative or other action, consultation of a detailed kind took place in relation to interests affected. That, indeed, if it were so, would be a happy state of affairs. I could understand any Minister, feeling that to be the situation, to be pleased, if not complacent, about it.

We have here, in relation to the Order affected by this amendment, an example I fear of little or no previous consultation with affected interests— an example of the Minister, of the Government, or of somebody in the Department acting on a story—attractive, I have no doubt—put up on behalf of a particular point of view. This Order imposes a tariff on necessary medicines and life-saving medicinal preparations for the treatment of sick people. I have little doubt that when this Order was made last September, a case was put forward—bona fide, I am certain—that if such a tariff were imposed, industries here would be capable of manufacturing or completing the manufacture of drugs, tablets and medicinal preparations similar in quality to those being imported.

That is very attractive. I do not for one moment believe that if such a case were put forward it was not believed in and probably that such a case could in fact be proven and established. However, that is not the whole story and it shows that, in relation to a matter of this kind, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Health—if they were consulted, as I suppose they were— failed to consider properly the effect of such a tariff because the affected people are not the few engaged in working the machine that makes the pill but the general unthinking mass of the people—those who get sick, those who are sick and those who need medicines or drugs in one form or another.

I do not believe any consideration was given to what their point of view might be. I want to suggest a few things that should have been considered. What is involved in this tariff is quite a major decision. Though it may not be recognised as such at the moment, in effect, it is a decision to start in this country a pharmaceutical industry. We had a bit of it before. The beginnings of it have been there. This is a decision by the Government to support the creation of a pharmaceutical industry. I wonder if that has fully been considered?

I do not think it could be suggested that there is a very large employment content involved, nor do I think that enters into it very much. I can understand a case being made in favour of such an industry in this country— there may be arguments against it but certainly there are arguments for it. One preliminary step which should have been taken and which has not been taken in relation to these matters, since they concern medicines and drugs, is the establishment of an independent bureau of standards.

I read the Minister's speech on Second Reading. I know it to be true that one of the industries concerned in this matter have their own scientific research and their own ways of ensuring that standards are observed. That is not sufficient. The bureau of standards should be entirely independent of the industry. In other countries— in Britain, particularly, and in Continental countries—where the companies engaged in the manufacture of drugs and medicines are public charitable concerns—where there is no profit involved such as in the case of the Burroughs Wellcome Foundation—they have their own bureau and their own standards. It is quite wrong, I suggest, when we are dealing with a commercial enterprise such as that with which we are dealing here, that we should be content in relation to a matter affecting the health of the people to abide by the standards observed by those engaged in the commercial enterprise itself.

That preliminary step was not taken. I do not think it is too late to take it. I think there is available here—and certainly there can be made available here—sufficient scientific knowledge and experience to establish such a bureau. If such a bureau were established, its establishment would or should be supported by any firm or company engaged in the manufacture of these preparations here. If it were established, it would assist the Minister if it is his policy to establish in this country a pharmaceutical industry of a bona fide and genuine character. Until such a bureau is established, I am going to ask the House to agree with me that we should not persist in the protection, under this tariff, of medicinal tablets and similar preparations. That is one consideration which I urge.

There is another consideration which follows from the fact that there is not such a bureau of standards here. That consideration was referred to in passing, I think, by Deputy Dr. Browne in the debate on the Second Reading. It is a fact that this tariff, as it works out in practice, has imposed a tax on sick people. It has put up by from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. the drugs and medicines commonly used and generally used in this country by people who are sick and require treatment.

I know the Minister will say that could not be, that those engaged in the industry here have given an undertaking that the home manufactured pills and drugs will not cost any more than the imported article. I know that undertaking was given. I know it was honoured. Secondly, the Minister may say that if anyone wants to import a Burroughs Wellcome preparation or any other preparation a licence is freely available.

That is quite a good case on paper but I suggest that it does not hold water for one moment for this reason, that the majority—I should say the great majority—of general practitioners, when they are writing out a prescription which is to be filled by a chemist, give a prescription for a well-known proprietary drug, pill or medicine, generally a Burroughs Wellcome product. The chemist may know that it is something manufactured here by an Irish firm which he has every reason to believe is the same and is as good but the chemist cannot interfere with the prescription and must fill it.

If it is a medicine or drug which is commonly prescribed, it is possible, I have no doubt, for the licensing provisions to operate but, generally, that does not happen. Generally, what happens is that the particular drug or medicine prescribed is needed straight away and it is sold by the chemist from his stock. It is sold by him or maybe sold by him in relation to stock upon which he had to pay duty.

I hope I am putting this as reasonably as I can. I think the initial mistake made in this whole business was that the necessary foresight was not exercised. That may not be the fault of the Minister's Department. It may have been the fault of the advice tendered or not tendered to his Department. The initial mistake was that the ground was not prepared for the establishment or the support of a pharmaceutical industry in this country and, because that was not done, people do not know whether the Irish equivalent is, in fact, an equivalent and as good.

They are inclined to regard claims put forward by the commercial interests producing these as being, in fact, the kind of blurb that most people use who advertise their goods. If there were available an independent scientific bureau that could assess the quality of any drug or medicine manufactured here and give it the O.K., then I think the Minister would find it far easier to get the co-operation and the assistance of the doctors in prescribing Irish drugs and medicines. Until that is done, in my view you are not going to have these Irish drugs supported as they should. The result is that the impact of the tariff is, in fact, being felt by the general body of sick people throughout the country.

It is for these reasons that I on behalf of my Party have tabled an amendment to delete the tariff from the Schedule in the hope that the necessary preparation may be made to deal with this matter in the way I described. We are not against the tariff. I can see there is a great deal to be said in favour of supporting and establishing a pharmaceutical industry here. The only criticism I have endeavoured to express is the fact that this has not been handled in the way it should have been.

Mr. J. Lynch

When I was replying to the Second Reading of this Bill last week, I dealt with complaints made from the Fine Gael benches in regard to this particular duty and I reminded the Deputies that the procedure adopted in this case was exactly the same procedure adopted when Deputy O'Higgins was Minister for Health under the same circumstances. About four years ago—five years ago now— there was imposed a duty on injection solutions. The Department of Health was then consulted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in advance of this Order being made. They indicated to the Department that the home-manufactured commodity was as good in all respects as the imported one and the tariff was imposed by Deputy O'Higgins's colleague, Deputy Norton, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce. It did not apparently occur then to Deputy O'Higgins that this bureau of standards might have been set up at that time.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is quite a different thing. Liver extract is a purely nutritional preparation.

Mr. J. Lynch

At all events, in the course of my reply last week I did refer to the fact that there is in existence, as Deputy O'Higgins knows, the British Pharmaceutical Codex and the British Pharmacopoeia and the standard formulae for the preparation of tablets are laid down in these two publications. It is an offence in this country to sell drugs or tablets contained in the Pharmacopoeia or the Pharmaceutical Codex, unless they correspond to these standard formulae. The Department of Health have advised the Department of Industry and Commerce that the quality and standard of the tablets produced by the Irish manufacturers are as high and as good as those imported from other countries. As well as that, the cost of the tablets ex-factory compared favourably with them. I do not know if in any case they exceeded the ex-factory cost of similar tablets produced in Britain.

There was evidence that tablets imported from abroad—I use the word "abroad" in the wide sense — were being sold at a lower price than in the home countries. That is one of the reasons the duty was imposed in this case. There were a number of complaints when the duty was first imposed but there were no complaints, I repeat, from the medical profession—certainly not to my Department at any stage. There were similar complaints at the time of the imposition of the duty on the injection solutions both, on that occasion, from medical sources and from pharmaceutical sources. In any event it happened that the fears expressed by them proved to be unfounded and there have been no complaints since then with regard to the duty imposed on injection solutions. At the time of the imposition of the duty on medicinal tablets it was clearly stated that duty free licences would be issued freely for the importation of tablets which were not manufactured here and I think that Deputy O'Higgins agrees that that undertaking has been honoured.

As well as that, in the event of a preference being expressed for a particular type of tablet, or a particular proprietary brand produced outside Ireland, provision was made that a person who, for one reason or another, insisted on getting that particular tablet got it without paying any duty because lots of up to 100 units are not subject to duty. As I stated last week if a person expresses a preference for a French, British or German tablet, and if a similar tablet is produced here, he is not obliged to buy the Irish tablet nor is he obliged to pay any more for the imported tablet. So long as he imports the tablets in lots of up to 100, they are duty free.

I am further advised that the standards of manufacture in Ireland are of the very highest and that there have not been any complaints latterly about the quality, the price or the availability of Irish tablets, or any complaints about inability to get alternatives if these are required. Under all these circumstances I do not think that the objections to the confirmation of this Order can stand.

I agree with Deputy O'Higgins that it would be a good thing to establish a bureau of standards here, but I do not agree with him that it is a necessary prerequisite to the manufacture of tablets in this country. I do not know to what extent the Department of Health have had regard to the possibility of establishing a bureau, but I know it is a matter that has been adverted to by them. Nevertheless, the Department of Health, as I said last week, has qualified medical practitioners and pharmacists and they carry out periodic inspections of the places in which these tablets are manufactured in Ireland. I am told that on all occasions the inspections have disclosed a highly satisfactory position as regards standards of hygiene and quality of output. Therefore, I repeat, I can see no reason why the House should refuse to confirm this Order.

Mr. O'Sullivan;

I should like to ask the Minister, when he refers to the availability of duty free licences for consignments of lots up to 100 units in number, to what class of persons are those licences available? I should like to know is it a fact that the ordinary person is at liberty to apply for such a licence and obtain it? If that is the case, it must be a matter of great concern. It would mean that people ordinarily limited by doctors to a certain amount of these drugs, or medicines, could, under licence, obtain a supply limited only by this requirement of 100 units. It might be highly dangerous to an ordinary person to allow him to have recourse to that quantity of drugs.

Mr. J. Lynch

May I suggest that the Deputy's statement is not quite right? No licences are required to import quantities up to 100. Duty free licences are given for tablets not manufactured here.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Can the Minister state whether that advice was actually given to a person who applied to the Department for a permit, a person who objected to paying the price plus the duty and that this person, an ordinary consumer, was actually provided with a licence to import? Would there not be danger in granting such licences?

I hope that the Minister is completely correct in saying he is safe in standing over his statement that he has had no complaints from the medical profession. Is it a fact that the profession actually take coverage in any duty they may have by naming the firm whose preparation they want dispensed and that different circumstances apply inasmuch as the chemist is obliged to give to the customer exactly what is named by the doctor in the prescription? He has absolutely no choice in the matter and is obliged to supply what is prescribed. That is the established practice with doctors and consequently that perhaps would explain the fact that the Minister is not in receipt of complaints. If that is so, it just means a considerable imposition on many people who are faced with heavy expenses in relation to the purchase of medicines throughout the country.

Dr. Browne

As Deputy O'Higgins said, the position is not quite the same now as it was. In relation to this establishment of an Irish pharmaceutical industry, I probably took the first steps myself in that I allowed the imposition of a tariff on Virol or something like that in order to allow a small industry in the midlands to be established. There is no comparison between a substance containing cod liver oil or malt and the substances we are dealing with. It is quite clear that this baby industry is likely to become a very much more powerful and substantial one and everybody wishes its well.

The Minister must not adopt the attitude that those of us who question it do so because we are anxious to see the continued importation of British, American, French or German drugs. I think we are able to make any substance or to carry on any craft, skill or profession as well as the people of any nation in the world. We have proved that; and I believe we could prove it in the case of a pharmaceutical industry, too. All I want to see is that the industry is given every possible chance of surviving in this its critical stage when it branches out into rather more important medicines, drugs and tablets.

It is for that reason that I think the suggestion of Deputy O'Higgins, and the suggestion of a number of responsible people, that a bureau of standards be established is a perfectly reasonable one. This suggestion is based on the assumption that the Irish pharmaceutical industry will extend, expand and grow. It is not a suggestion that has in mind the idea that it will collapse; on the contrary, it is an idea based on the assumption that the industry will expand. For that reason, we want to see the highest standards set and maintained.

The Minister seems to misunderstand the position a little in relation to the position of the medical profession. I do not think the average doctor gives a damn whether the drugs he prescribes are made in Hong Kong, Honolulu, Thurles or anywhere else. He is primarily concerned with whether they secure the end he has in mind, that is, the curing of the particular illness from which the patient is suffering. I do not think the Minister will be inundated with protests from the medical profession. On the contrary, I think the medical profession would much prefer that no great row was made about this whole question because they do not particularly want a change.

Deputy Dillon made a point in regard to drugs that are habitually used, that, on the one hand, a doctor has a belief in veganin, aspirin, some proprietary medical preparation, simple or complicated, which happens to work. He is conservative. He knows it is likely to work and that it has been tested and tried. He is likely to cling to that particular drug. On the other hand, the patient is also concerned in these things. It is quite an act on the part of a doctor to break a patient off a habit or a belief he happens to have in a particular drug. The doctor will not bother breaking that without some incentive.

Even if the Minister is to get the medical profession into his Department and ask them for their co-operation, I still think he will have a very hard job getting them to collaborate. There is a certain conservatism and a certain primitive belief — not really primitive, but a justified belief—that particular drugs will work and others will not. Why change horses when you are quite happy about getting the patient well? The Minister's job is a particularly difficult one, even taking the advice put forward to him with the best will in the world.

I do not think the Minister should take it that because the medical profession has not protested, everything is quite all right. It is not the doctor who pays for these drugs—he merely recommends them—it is the patient who pays for them. If the patient is given a prescription and goes to the chemist and finds that the price of the imported drug has increased by 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or whatever it is, the doctor is not really concerned because he has his fee. He merely says that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is trying to establish a new Irish industry and everything is more costly than it used to be. Generally speaking, the Department and the Government get the blame, but the main point is that it is the patient who pays and the cost of medicine is increased in that way. I think it is unnecessarily increased because there must be some way in which it could be established to the satisfaction of the medical profession that we can make these drugs here just as satisfactorily and efficiently as they can be made anywhere else and that the Irish trade could become established as being satisfactory and completely reliable in the production of medicines, tablets or drugs.

However, in present circumstances, I do not believe the Minister can give the medical profession any such guarantee. It is no good quoting the British Pharmacopoeia at them. Have the provisions and conditions as laid down in the British Pharmacopoeia been observed by the manufacturers? The manufacturers will say "Yes". The person distributing the diluted milk will not tell you he put water into it. For that reason, we have the food and drink regulations and health inspectors, some of whose functions are the periodic inspection and analysis of the different foods used for human consumption. These are some of the very good provisions of the 1947 Act, provisions which basically should be implemented in this Bill also.

There is no good in the Minister saying that officials have gone down to these factories, have looked at them and found that the premises are satisfactory and clean, and that the equipment is clean. That is neither here nor there. It is no use having first-class equipment and machinery and competent looking technicians turning out drugs which are not in fact made up to the formula laid down in the British Pharmacopoeia or which are in some way defective. The only way in which you can ensure they are not defective and that they are according to the detailed formula of the British Pharmacopoeia is by analysis. Going in and having a look at the factory and machinery is not a sufficient or satisfactory examination in this case.

For that reason, there is a most compelling case for the Minister to establish some form of independent and objective bureau of standards which can be above all of us—the profession, the public and the manufacturers — and consequently make certain statements which simply cannot be questioned because they are of scientific origin and therefore of great value.

If the Minister dismisses this whole idea of a bureau of standards, I do not think he can be serious in putting forward as a substitute that health inspectors and Department of Health officials should be satisfied with what they see. Why do other countries, on the Continent and elsewhere, not satisfy themselves with these devices if they are adequate for the protection of the public in relation to these various kinds of drugs?

It is a particularly difficult thing to assess the quality of effectiveness of drugs. If you have a drug which is defective in quality, the patient simply does not get better and it is important to try to keep control of the effectiveness of drugs. There is no good in saying to the doctors: "Keep your eyes on these things and, if they do not work, we shall know then that they are not up to the standards laid down by the British Pharmacopoeia." There are scientific methods to control the sale of drugs and these methods could be used properly only in a bureau of standards to test such drugs as biomycin, and the effectiveness of drugs on animals.

I personally appear to have very much more faith in an Irish pharmaceutical industry than the Minister because I hope it will become a very big industry which will eventually be in a position to export its products rather than that we should have to depend as at present, on other countries. Therefore, these steps should be taken so that we shall be able to offer to our own medical profession the evidence of analyses carried out by scientists, and be in a position to export to other countries that will probably be glad to trade with us, such as the Afro-Asian countries. When we take such steps and develop exports, we can export the drugs with absolute confidence that they are what they say they are on the label.

It is impossible, on the evidence put forward to us at the moment, to offer any such guarantee to the medical profession in our own country or, indeed, to that in any other country and, as a medical person, I could not consider switching with any serious drug. I am not talking about aspirins or anything like that, but it would be quite wrong, without the absolute certainty of a standard established by an independent authority on drugs, to switch in the treatment given by one drug now and possibly risk the life of an individual.

For that reason, the Minister should give serious consideration to the suggestion of establishing a bureau in relation to the distribution of drugs. I would also like to ask what is the position in regard to the Department of Health as regards the authority it exercises over the use of drugs in local authority hospitals and institutions of all kinds, through the Combined Purchasing Section of the Department of Local Government. Is there to be a re-consideration of the permitted drugs for use in these institutions? Is that list of drugs to be pruned and are imported drugs to be excluded and substituted by home-manufactured drugs and medicines?

Major de Valera

I cannot help intervening with a certain amount of interest, from the point of view of control. The trouble about this debate is that the other side gives it the appearance of being a matter of the Opposition versus the Government. We should look at a matter of this sort as objectively as possible and that is what I shall try to do now if I can, though I may appear for a moment to have gone very much in the direction of Deputy O'Higgins. The net question is the quality of the drugs concerned and I think we can take the premise Deputy Dr. Browne has given us, that we all want to see an Irish pharmaceutical industry develop here. In fact, in modern times, developments in such directions are quite natural and if we do not develop such industries, we shall be stunted.

We can also accept the premise that we should, without much difficulty, be able to manufacture the drugs, in so far as the chemical substances required are concerned. A pharmaceutical chemist mentioned to me that in regard to variants of certain types of drugs, there is a bewildering multiplicity, without any real difference in certain categories, but then there are other types of drugs in the modern pharmaceutical set-up—if I may put it that way—which are very different, delicate and very specific, and which perhaps require a very large organisation to produce them in quantity to a uniform standard. That may be the administrative problem that we have to face here but let me try to put it more specifically.

I do not think that Deputy Dr. Browne would worry very much about variations of such common and chemically simple drugs as aspirin. Even though there are variants of that, with a little codeine in them, it is a very simple chemical substance, capable of simple preparation and capable of simple standardisation. I speak subject to the correction of my pharmaceutical colleagues here in this House, but when one comes to deal with drugs of the type of the antibiotics, for instance, there are grades and variants of these. I may be putting my neck out in making this statement because I have no technical knowledge, but I rather suspect that these antibiotics are varied from time to time and that may be due to some variation in the resistance built up by the organism causing a disease. I do not know if that is true or not, but I do seem to sense that certain antibiotics that are in use today are not quite the same things as they were a few years ago, and that a change in trend is taking place.

In that case, there is obviously a major problem for a country like this starting such an industry, and there is obviously a case for control because we cannot afford to leave it to the doctors to see that drugs work. Talking about standardisation, the net proposal I should like to make is that if the Pharmaceutical Society—which is obviously the professional body concerned to control these things—could be facilitated in establishing control, by consultation or otherwise, most of the difficulty inherent in this could be overcome. In a sense, it is really a drafting difficulty. Such chemically simple drugs as aspirin are easy enough to handle but one trouble is that in getting a Bill to capture them, you will probably go very far in capturing others as well, and I personally feel that there will always have to be elasticity in regard to the importation of drugs in certain categories, owing to the rate of change, and owing to the fact that it will be a long time before we shall have the chemical potential to supply them.

Possibly the last and crucial point touched upon by Deputy Dr. Browne was this: who is to be at the disadvantage in this? So long as the Minister does not absolutely prohibit the drugs being imported— and the Minister has been very careful to point out that anyone can get any particular drug which he wants, at a price—it will not be the person who can afford to pay for these drugs who may be in any danger. It will be, in the first instance, the person who is strained for payment. But I would be more concerned, just as Deputy Dr. Browne was concerned, about what is to happen in the big institution where the thing may be formalised somewhat, but it would be beyond me to analyse that problem any further than to make that suggestion for consideration, not by way of implication that there is anything wrong in this proposal.

I suggest to the Minister that the chemical or the category of drug should be more clearly defined. That is going to be an expert job. It will not be a job for an administrator in a Department. In fact, properly speaking, it would not be a job for an administrative department at all. If the category of drug that can be made subject to this order can be defined, then there are clearly certain drugs that you could, without much complaint, let go into that. In regard to all the rest, I could make no better suggestion than that if the Pharmaceutical Society—the society which is responsible for the professional control of the people whose business it is to know what drugs they are dispensing and to dispense them—in conjunction with the medical profession, were to be approached from the point of view of supplying the machinery to deal with the other problems, it would, perhaps, be the most feasible solution and, perhaps, would meet not only what the Minister is trying to do, and laudably trying to do, but also whatever substance there is in the objections which have come from Deputy O'Higgins's side of the House.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I do not want to keep this matter under discussion but it is of importance, and I want to suggest to the Minister, having heard the views which have been expressed by Deputies, that any person with a reasonable mind must be coerced to the conclusion that here is something which justifies the criticism that has been made here today. This is not a commodity similar to all the others dealt with in this list of tariffs. This is a tariff affecting the medical treatment of sick people and people who, like the majority of us, are not doctors, as Deputy Dr. Browne is, who are ignorant of their own complaint, trust the person who treats them as a doctor and trust the pill he provides for them. If that pill does not work, they die, and that is the end of that story. If it is not effective, if it just does not do its work, that could be a serious thing. I do not suggest that the particular preparation would poison a person or cause or precipitate death, but it may not be effective in curing or alleviating the condition it is supposed to deal with. If there is that possibility, it is a serious one.

If we are to embark on the protection or expansion of a pharmaceutical industry here, there are very serious implications which we should all understand. First of all, we may isolate ourselves from research that is taking place elsewhere throughout the world. In relation to advances in science and in medical knowledge, there is a general charitable view that the benefit of such advances should be shared throughout the world. If we do embark on an industry ourselves, we must be very sure that we realise what is involved in doing that and, above all, we should be certain, to the extent of its being established without question, that any preparation or any drug manufactured here and put on the market is clearly established as being the genuine article.

The Minister believes it to be so now. The industries engaged assert it to be so. At least one of them has a well-equipped laboratory and testing service, and so on. But that is an assertion made on behalf of a company engaged in a commercial enterprise and it is not the same thing. Until you have an independent scientific assessment of these things, the truth is you will not succeed in establishing a pharmaceutical industry because, in fact, you will not get doctors to prescribe or patients to seek these home-manufactured preparations.

To use a tag with which the Minister is probably familiar, this is a case in which not only should justice be done but it should also appear to be done and not only should those engaged in the industries here produce drugs of a high quality but that should be established beyond question by an independent scientific body outside the industry itself.

We have had a discussion here which has been an objective discussion, not centred in any one side of the House. It does suggest, or should suggest, to the Minister that there is a well-based concern with regard to this matter, that the criticism that has been offered here is of a helpful kind and intended to be constructive and I would urge him to reconsider this whole matter along the lines suggested here. If he does so, I think he will be putting this industry on the correct lines. If he does not do so, I feel that all the tariffs in the world will achieve nothing because there will continue to be a demand for imported medicines and they will continue to be prescribed by doctors, and the Minister's Department will have to issue licences or, if the licences are not applied for, sick people will have to pay more for imported articles and what is intended will not be achieved.

Major de Valera

Following Deputy O'Higgins's suggestion, in regard to certain types of drugs, the purely chemical type of drug, could the Minister not use the State Laboratory? I am reminded by something Deputy O'Higgins said that the Minister for Finance does not trust the manufacturers of spirit to keep to particular schedules and milks and waters and all these things are tested in the State Laboratory. Up to a certain point, that organisation conceivably could be expanded to take in such a control. Deputy Dr. Browne could correct me on a technical point in this but I think that control would be limited to certain what might be called directly chemical substances. Where you are dealing with some of the antibiotics and the biological preparations, you would probably want a separate control. There again I can only suggest falling back on the Pharmaceutical Society with the medical profession.

Mr. Loughman

Great play is being made with the question of a bureau of standards. In Britain, there is not a bureau of standards. Each manufacturing industry has some analytical system of its own but I understand that there is no bureau of standards in Britain, notwithstanding the fact that they have a tremendous pharmaceutical manufacturing industry there. In France the bureau of standards they have provides only a limited service for the people and too much play has been made on it. As regards the question of meeting the Minister for Health with a view to setting up some bureau of standards here, I agree with Deputy de Valera that for ordinary drugs or chemicals used in medicines there is not much in it so far as this Order is concerned. We can get the proper tablets containing the proper quantity and the proper quality as it is. The difficulty arises mainly because of trade names. Deputy Dr. Browne mentioned veganin which is called by many other names such as codalgin or codemprine. Codeine compound tablets are what we actually call them and it would be a great ease to the people and very much cheaper for them if they could call the thing by its proper name as it is usually prescribed by the doctor.

When this measure was first introduced we had all these questions out with the Minister, and it was brought home to us that in order that a pharmaceutical industry would be given a chance of prospering in Ireland it was necessary to do something to prevent the influx of a tremendous quantity of every drug under the sun. There are always eight or nine different names for a drug prescribed for a patient by the doctor. One firm will call it one thing, another firm another thing. The result is a chemist must get eight or nine different bottles of the same medicine to satisfy the fad in whatever area it is. If this Bill even had the effect of limiting the variety of these names it would be a great saving.

We understand that anything that is not manufactured here can be imported under licence without duty. I am sure the Minister understands that when we say "anything that is not manufactured here" we mean that anything that is not manufactured here of the highest quality can be imported. If an article of the highest quality is manufactured here I fail to see why the Minister should allow a whole variety of drugs to be imported. As regards tablets called saxin which are really saccharine tablets, I see no reason why they should not be subject to duty because saccharine is saccharine no matter what you call it.

I believe there is no bureau of standards in England so far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned. Each manufacturing firm has its own system of evaluating standards, but where they have they have a limited use. The standard set is usually what is contained in the article, not what effect the tablet or whatever it is will have on the patient. If we could get a bureau of standards with that end in view it would be much better for us. However, I believe that as the industry develops it will set up its own system of standardisation. I have heard of this Bureau of Standards in connection with other industrial developments. Notwithstanding the importance of medicines, I think it would apply to an even greater extent to matters outside medicine altogether. However, we have had this matter out with the Minister and we came to the conclusion that in the best interests of the industry and without doing any harm to the doctors or the patients, the Order is justified.

Mr. Norton

I approach this from the standpoint of asking myself the question: is it desirable or is it undesirable to develop a pharmaceutical industry in this country? I think it is and that some of the firms in the pharmaceutical industry here have achieved a high standard of excellence and a high standard of care in the preparation of their products, and their products would bear comparison with any of the commodities of a similar kind imported.

The difficulty, however, is that our manufacturers in this field are not able to afford the fantastic sums of money which are spent by our larger neighbours in advertising their products, with the result that because of the power of advertisements, the power of the Press to disseminate advertisements, it has been possible for the consuming public to get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the well-advertised product is the one which will give the speediest measure of success in curing the patient. In the secret of their own hearts I am quite certain the manufacturers of the product have to acknowledge that there is no mesmeric content in their tablet, that in fact any tablet compounded of the same ingredients and taken in the average case will give the same average results. Of course when a firm is established and has a market it will naturally fight for that market. I am afraid a good deal of the agitation around this question of protecting the pharmaceutical industry in certain fields as envisaged in this Bill has originated in a desire by exporters in other countries to try to hold on to a pharmaceutical market here which has been of considerable value to them.

This Bill, from the standpoint of the protection which it affords to the Irish pharmaceutical industry, is a reasonable one. It says that whatever you can manufacture here under standards acceptable to top level people in the medical field in the Department of Health will be protected against imports.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It does not say that.

Mr. Norton

I know it does not say it but I have a recollection of the file that says that this matter went through the Department of Health, was seen by the Department of Health people and is known to the Department of Health people. I hardly imagine the medical people in the Department of Health are in a conspiracy to give the consuming public here an ersatz product instead of one with which the consuming public are familiar.

The Minister has said that where a commodity is not manufactured here a licence to import it free of duty will be given, or where there are people who imagine that only a particular class of tablet made by a particular firm in such-and-such a town or in a garden village in England will produce the result the patient wants, you may import 100 of those tablets, free of duty, every day, every week, every month, so long as you want to pay for them and so long as you believe the more of them you consume the better you will be. It all rests with the people. That is very largely the whole basis of a number of these medical prescriptions.

If a bureau of standards is to be set up I think it should be applied in other directions. If you look at the newspapers you will see an advertisement like this: "Grandmother is now 90. She has been ten years in bed, but she started to take such-and-such a syrup or such-and-such a tablet; now grandmother is up and walks five miles a day." That is printed in our papers in 1960. You will have another person advertising in this way; "Such-and-such a person who had had no hair on his head for years, applied this solution to his head and after one week he started growing a luscious crop of black curly hair." That kind of stuff is printed day after day and week after week. From about October to March, is the silly period for these advertisements.

Other advertisements will provide a cure for colds so efficiently and effectively that the colds keep coming back at the same time every year. There has always been a market for hair restoratives, with the result that one only has to take up a provincial paper to read such advertisements on the mesmeric effects of applying a coloured lotion which produces a luxuriant crop of hair.

Mr. Moher

What about the slimming ones?

Mr. Norton

Yes. All that kind of thing is an impost on credulous, simple humanity. In the natural striving for beauty and good health, people believe in these preparations which could be more usefully deposited in the local river and should never have seen the light of day.

I do not, of course, say some of the most valuable drugs at the service of stricken mankind are in that category, but I do say that many people are buying commodities which are supposed to be cures and, in fact, these things are deliberate frauds on the people. I do not know whether Deputies have read the recent report on the drugs racket in America in which it was established there that some of the manufacturers of drugs bought ingredients for the drugs and after having liquefied or ground up the ingredients and converted them into liquid or tablets, the gross mark-up was in the vicinity of 5,000 per cent. on the original purchase price of the ingredients, all of course showing the extent of human faith in these commodities, that people will pay these prices for microscopic portions of commodities which are recommended to them as calculated to cure disabilities. However, that is aside from the main argument and I do not wish to digress further into that field.

If we want to help an Irish pharmaceutical industry to develop this is one of the ways of doing it. It ought not to be developed at the price of inflicting upon our people the ersatz product which is not satisfactory and which does not come up to international standards. There has been no evidence that anybody proposes to do that. The reputation of our firms and their contact with the medical and pharmaceutical world outside is an insurance against that. In any case, if a patient believes that a particular brand is the kind necessary to cure him or to give him relief he may import 100 tablets as often as he likes. That provides a reasonable safeguard.

No evidence has been produced to indicate that this is a dangerous step or that it has had, during the short period of its operation, any injurious effect on our people, and it ought not at this stage to be killed. Instead we ought to allow it operate and have it reviewed if at any time there is any evidence that is is having an adverse effect on public health.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not think the House should be led away by the lurid picture painted by Deputy Norton of the irrelevant hare—not hair—to which he referred. It seems to me that this product is one which depends entirely on confidence for its success. If there is not confidence in a medicinal preparation it does not matter how good it may be. More than in the case of any other saleable product, the sale of what we are discussing here depends on the purchaser having complete confidence—more so, perhaps, on the customer than on the doctor having complete confidence in it. It is a fact that at present there is not that confidence. It is a fact that probably from what the Minister has said, there is no justification for that lack of confidence. As long as the lack of confidence remains it is perfectly clear that the product cannot be successfully used. The easiest way of restoring confidence is the way advocated by Deputy O'Higgins.

Deputy Loughman suggested that in England there was not such a bureau of standards. There is something not quite the same as a bureau of standards but something that has effects on the standard of the product provided and that, no doubt, has been one of the causes why that product has been so well accepted. Deputy Loughman is not here at present and I should not like to hurt him in his absence, but the Deputy said, speaking as a layman, that the case he was making for this Order was that it was too much trouble for chemists to keep in their establishments many wide ranges of different drugs.

Mr. Moran

Of the same drugs.

Mr. Sweetman

Of different names of drugs which the Deputy thought, perhaps, were the same but which the doctors, apparently, do not think are the same. Apparently, doctors think they react in different ways.

Major de Valera

You can have the same substance in different proportions.

Mr. Sweetman

Of course. That, as I understand it, was the case Deputy Loughman made on behalf of the chemists—I do not want to attribute it to him personally — that this was a good Order because the chemists were not going to be asked to keep a wide range of commodities. Surely that is the worst possible argument that could be made for the Minister in relation to this Order and I am sure the Minister must have been saying: "Heaven preserve me from my friends if that is the line they are going to take."

The real fundamental point in this matter is that we all regard anything in relation to health as being of importance not so much from the point of view of whether the thing does us good but of whether we believe it does us good or not. That is the fundamental difference between things related to health and other products. I cannot understand, therefore, why the Minister will not accede to the request to do anything that will help to establish that confidence. That is the case that was made by Deputy O'Higgins as I understand it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

There are just a few points I want to make in conclusion. Deputy Sweetman has referred to what Deputy Loughman said. Deputy Loughman made the case that there is no bureau in England. I do not think that is precisely the case. I am not an expert on it; others may know more about it. But there is the important factor that the Borroughs and Wellcome Foundation is not a commercial concern in the ordinary sense. Under its Trust, its profits go back into research and so forth. The fact that the British pharmaceutical industry is largely founded on Borroughs and Wellcome activity ensures both an acceptable and definite standard.

Deputy Norton made an interesting speech here, though I hesitate to suggest that, like the "flowers that bloom in the spring, tra-la," it has nothing to do with the case.

Mr. Norton

It was based on the need for having a bureau of standards.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I do not know if Deputy Norton appreciates the case we make here. We do not think—at least I do not think and neither do those Deputies who have spoken here and who share my view—that this tariff will assist the expansion of a pharmaceutical industry here. We know that that is the intention behind the tariff, but we do not think that the tariff will assist in that direction until such time as there is a bureau of standards to vouch for and approve of the articles manufactured here. Such a bureau would put us on the right track and keep us there.

Major de Valera

Have you not got the standard for most of the drugs, leaving out the experimental ones or the biological ones, in the Pharmacopoeia already? Having the standards, is it not really then a question of analysis? I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but I am afraid the use of the term "bureau of standards" may upset the entire case.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The formula may be there in the British Pharmacopoeia. My concern is that there should be available here an independent scientific assessment to ensure that these standards are observed. If that is done, this tariff will be a success. If it is not done—I am sorry to have to say this—I do not believe any number of tariffs will succeed. Whether it is because of advertising, or some other reason, the fact remains that there is confidence in established medicines and preparations. What is really essential here is that confidence should be created first because it all comes down to confidence in the end.

Dr. Browne

Deputy Loughman mentioned saccharine tablets and the case of the individual who, having got a prescription for a particular saccharine tablet, had no choice because the chemist had to give the particular tablet on the prescription even though he knew there was a much cheaper preparation available. Actually that sort of thing has created a very difficult position for chemists in general. They know the names of most of the home-manufactured drugs and, as time goes on, they would become familiar with a wider and wider range of such drugs. They know those drugs are comparable to the imported article, but they are rigidly bound by the prescription. In fact, I understand they are liable to some form of legal or professional sanction if they recommend a preparation which they know is equally effective, but perhaps somewhat cheaper. It seems to me to come back to the point that the Minister must get the medical profession on his side so that they will prescribe the cheaper article. With the best will in the world, the chemist cannot alter the prescription, as Deputy Loughman pointed out.

With regard to a bureau of standards, there is the saving factor in Britain that there is competition of one kind or another. I do not think that is an altogether satisfactory alternative. Again, British industries are much wealthier and they can afford to have well-equipped laboratories for their own scientific assessment. However, I do not think that this is a satisfactory substitution for a bureau of standards. I do not think we should be bound by their practice in this regard. Deputy Loughman has given us to understand that the pharmaceutical industry here will try to press on the Minister the necessity for having a bureau of standards.

I do not agree with Deputy O'Higgins that Deputy Norton's contribution had nothing to do with the case. Deputy Norton, quite correctly, gave us a list of completely bogus claims made, presumably, by Irish manufacturers of a certain type of medicinal preparations; they will grow hair; they will slim people; they will restore lost youth, and make a hundred and one other improvements. Lucozade, which is simply a sugar and water preparation, is meant to have magical and costly ingredients designed to restore energy. Most of these things have no real therapeutic value at all. But my point is that these bogus claims are made. Deputy Norton appreciates that they are bogus claims —by Irish manufacturers.

I do not think, therefore, that we can trust the manufacturer entirely to observe strictly the terms of the undertaking given by him on the label of a particular preparation. We cannot be sure that it will effect a particular result in the patient. It has been established by Deputy Norton that there are already people at the moment behaving after this fashion. There will be nothing to stop them continuing the practice in relation to rather more serious preparations. For that reason, the points made by Deputy Norton were illustrative of the danger of not having an independent assessment of all preparations made by Irish manufacturers.

He also made a point in relation to the patient who can afford anything up to 100 tablets. In the ordinary case of the average patient the general prescription for a simple illness is three, four or a dozen tablets. It is very difficult to visualise a patient going to the trouble of seeking to import and asking for a special import licence for 50 or even 100 tablets. I think that would be asking too much of the average human being suffering from a casual illness. But I am glad the provision is there, though I doubt if anyone will bother using it.

Major de Valera

The debate seems to be becoming a bit involved. Deputy Norton was dealing with a different aspect. I was talking about the serious drug. But Deputy Norton put his finger on another problem, a problem which does not really come into this debate, though I share with what Deputy Dr. Browne said to some extent in regard to the matter. It does not directly come in.

We all recollect that some years ago the Minister for Health made a very welcome Order from the point of view of everyone concerned in which he restricted freak claims for the working of miracles, but we, I understand, were dealing, in this debate, with the series of drugs a doctor would prescribe and we have worked on the principle that they could be manufactured in Ireland and that if we could stimulate a native pharmaceutical industry we should do so.

I accept those premises and on those premises, I see the problem then as simple as this. There is a large number of the common drugs which, whether bottled by the chemist himself or whether he takes them out of a proprietary bottle and puts his own label on them—or tablets such as aspirin—and there is no reason why they should not be made here and protected here. Of that I am convinced. I find myself completely in agreement with the Minister up to that point, but it is here that I find myself becoming cautious and asking: Do we need some external standards? For instance, if a drug of the same variety as aspirin, which is based, I understand, on salicylic acid, is sold, there is probably a spot check. I do not want the standards and purity of the pharmacopoeia, but I suggest some agency like the State Laboratory which checks alcohol for Revenue, milks and the purity of water supplies. It could be done on a sampling basis, in which a sample is taken to ascertain by test whether there is so much of the chemical, aspirin, and otherwise, for purity and standard.

I happen to have a proprietary bottle of tablets here which sets out the composition of the tablets: ten milligrammes of dicyclomine hydrochloride and 15 milligrammes of phenobarbitone. I have no reason to think they could not be equally well manufactured in Ireland. Probably the same thing is being manufactured in other countries by different firms with merely a difference in the proprietary brand. In so far as that is concerned, I am at one with the Minister, but I want to ask is there some external check?

Mr. J. Lynch

There is. Why does the Deputy assume there is not?

Major de Valera

I am not assuming there is not, but is it sufficient? That is the point. There is some external check, that is so, and that goes for all that type of drug and, therefore, there is no problem in relation to this Order, but I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the more exotic or biological drugs and even the experimental drugs, but I suggest leaving them to the medical profession.

On the question of analysis, the Minister could help the House and actually close the debate so far as I am concerned by specifying what are the external analytical controls on such drugs. That would close the debate as regards a large variety of the proprietary drugs.

Mr. J. Lynch

I find it necessary to go back to some extent on the history of this industry which is not an old industry in this country. There are, I think, five or six firms which manufacture these drugs. There is one firm in particular and as I said in reply to a Parliamentary Question it was as a result of a request made by that firm that the original duties were imposed. They had been manufacturing for a number of years and were quite satisfied with their progress. They had increased their market to a point where, apparently, people who exported these drugs to this country from other countries became concerned about their progress. It appeared at one stage that tablets were available on the market at prices lower than the prices in the markets of the country of origin. It was in those circumstances that it was decided to impose this duty. Since then, the industry has progressed and I am glad to say appears to be still progressing. I hope the stage will be reached when we shall have a very worthwhile pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in this country.

Some Deputies, and Deputy O'Higgins in particular, referred to the fact that unless the products of the Irish pharmaceutical industry have the confidence of the public, no tariff will assist their expansion. More than confidence is involved in these cases. I am sure Deputies will be familiar with the preferences expressed for different kinds of commodities by reason of usage and not only by usage, but by the fact that agencies are established here for the distribution of products made abroad. Even though those products could be procured here of a quality and at a price comparable with the imported commodity, these agencies continue to do business, because the people to whom they sell are in the habit of buying the particular products. Sometimes duties are imposed in order to break people off that bad habit, even though the Irish commodity is as cheap and in some cases cheaper than the imported one. More than mere confidence is involved in many cases in relation to tariffs. There is also the question of habit and of inducing people to buy the Irish product of comparable price and quality with the imported one.

Deputy Norton was right in his recollection of what happened on a previous occasion. There was consultation with the Department of Health. I should like to say to Deputy O'Higgins that the tariff imposed was not for the protection of somebody producing malt extract in this country. There is such a tariff in force but the injection solution tariff was genuine. A tariff was imposed in respect of genuine medical preparations for injections and that was done with the co-operation of the Department of Health and the Department of Industry and Commerce when Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Norton were in office.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is not analogous.

Mr. J. Lynch

Surely it is? I am not disputing the main contention of Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Dr. Browne that a bureau, or some independent authority, should be set up. There is at the moment an independent authority in the Department of Health. There are pharmacists and analysts and inspections are carried out. The premises of the Irish producers are inspected from the points of view of the pharmacists and analysts and the products are, in fact, analysed from time to time.

The Minister for Health has stated that he envisages an even more technical type of organisation. In reply to a Question by Deputy Dr. Browne some few weeks ago, he stated that he was giving urgent consideration to the establishment of what he described himself as a pharmaceutical control laboratory. The Minister made that statement on 2nd March, and when he says he is giving urgent attention to the matter, I am sure he means what he says. At an earlier stage, he said he hoped for the establishment of a State laboratory to ensure that an even more effective system of inspection and analysis of Irish pharmaceutical products will be carried out.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The trouble is that he is distracting himself.

Mr. Norton

Is it limited to what are described as "pharmaceutical products"?

Mr. J. Lynch

The question was limited to pharmaceutical products, at any rate. Whether the Minister envisages a wider form of laboratory control, I do not know.

I think it was Deputy T.F. O'Higgins who suggested that I should get the medical profession on my side. I do not think I have them against me in this respect. They have made no complaint to me. I do not see why I should try to get them on my side. I assume, in the absence of any complaint, that they are not against me.

Mr. Norton

In any case, they are fully engaged at the moment. Some dreadful war bulletins were issued this week.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy Dr. Browne asked me a specific question as to whether or not there would be any dictatorial powers as far as health services are concerned, arising out of this Order. My opinion is that, before this Order, Irish medicinal preparations, where they were available, were stocked by the Department of Health dispensaries and other institutions. The position has not changed. I am informed that if imported tablets or drugs are required the Department of Health has facilities for the making available of these imported tablets or drugs to patients requiring them.

Mr. Norton

The Minister does not mean a licence for a quota under 100?

Mr. J. Lynch

No licence whatever. A person can order from any factory in the world on his own postcard or by asking his chemist to do so.

If I acceded to the request of Deputy T.F. O'Higgins that I suspend the operation of this Order pending the establishment of a bureau or a control laboratory, it would mean stunting the growth of this industry. At the moment, I do not think it is necessary. The safeguards are very adequate to ensure that the standard of the Irish commodity is maintained and is comparable with that of the imported one.

I can assure the House that the prices are comparable and in some cases they are less than the cost, on the home market, of some of these imported tablets. In the meantime, I welcome the urgent attention given and being given by the Minister for Health to the setting-up of the control laboratory. To suspend the Order now would stunt the growth of this firm and retard the day when we would have a really worth-while pharmaceutical industry. The immediate effect would be to disemploy a number of workers at present engaged in the Irish industry.

Mr. Norton

The Minister quoted what the Minister for Health said of his intentions in respect of the establishment of a laboratory to deal with claims in regard to pharmaceutical products. I would hope that the Minister would be able to say to his colleague, the Minister for Health, that the terms of that laboratory ought to be so widened as to enable it to deal with all kinds of products, not merely pharmaceutical products but the type of product which I mentioned earlier, varieties of salts, balm, liquids, all of which claim in one way or another to be able to effect some desirable change in the appearance or well-being of the simple man or woman who purchases them.

If you look at the daily and weekly newspapers and at the English Sunday newspapers you will observe the vast amount of stuff advertised. It would be very interesting to ascertain the expenditure by our people on foreign products apart from the native products. It would be very interesting to ascertain the amount of money we spend on purchasing commodities manufactured outside the country in the simple belief that they will effect these cures. You will see an advertisement in regard to the speeding-up of the tempo of life. You will see an advertisement for some preparation which will make an individual suffering from lassitude and inertia almost like a human dynamo. Then there is a tablet to help a person to slow down, to make life easier for him, to help him to adjust himself to the tensions and strains of daily life.

That extends even to animals. Recently, I saw an advertisement for tablets calculated to make old tom cats as frivolous as young kittens. All that kind of thing goes on and simple people buy them. We would do a good service to the community at large if we set up a bureau and said: "Nobody will be allowed to sell commodities in that field which do not, in fact, pass the test that they will do for the human being what the manufacturer of the commodity claimed they would do." If that were done, a lot of people would be wiser and richer than they will ever be so long as these indiscriminate advertisements are allowed.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Schedule and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next stage?

Mr. Sweetman

I would not agree to the Minister's taking the Report Stage until he makes the inquiries fully that he should have made before he came in here to-day. Therefore, Standing Orders had better be followed.

Mr. J. Lynch

Next Tuesday, then. I am not pressing for it. I do not mind if you keep it until Christmas.

Mr. Sweetman

Fair enough. At Christmas we shall have it, so.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 5th April, 1960.