This sets out the functions of the Council which, briefly, are to advise the Minister for Health in relation to any regulations under Section 14 of the proposed Act and the Minister for Agriculture in relation to any regulations under Section 15.
Committee on Finance. - Poisons Bill, 1960—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I know we could wait to discuss this at a later stage but I want to raise at once a matter to which I attach very great importance. I recognise that with the developments that have taken place there may be poisonous substances used in connection with agriculture generally which it may be necessary now to control by regulations of the kind envisaged in this Bill. I refer particularly to certain types of poisonous spray that may constitute a hazard to those charged with the responsibility of spreading them. Other types of poisonous spray may create problems in regard to bird life, bees and insects, but under Section 15 it is also proposed that this body shall have the power to advise the Minister for Agriculture in relation to certain regulations relative to the use of what are technically defined as poisonous preparations for veterinary purposes. I think that is going too far.
Could we not debate that on Section 15? I doubt if this is the appropriate section.
If it suits the Minister better, but I want to enter at once a caveat that I recognise the appropriateness of the Council undertaking to advise the Minister in relation to poisons either for human use or even in agriculture because I recognise the hazard that that may create inadvertently by being used for the protection of crops. However, I want to demur at once at the inclusion of veterinary preparations. You must always in legislation of this kind try to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages. There is always a tendency on the part of the professions and indeed of our esteemed public servants to go too far in protecting us against ourselves and that very often carries us to the point of putting burdens upon the community which it is not reasonable to ask the community to bear. I can see that there must be control of the promiscuous use of poisons where there is the danger of their being used improperly by human beings but I cannot for the life of me think why if a farmer desires to give a pig an injection or even a cow an injection he should be prohibited by law from doing so because the substance which he proposes to inject into his beast has been declared on the advice of a committee of this kind to be a dangerous substance.
The net result of such procedures will be that there will gradually grow up around the livestock farmers of the country a hedge of restrictions on the veterinary remedies which can only be penetrated by the habitual employment of a veterinary surgeon. In my experience, the result of that will be that many farmers will not be able to afford to continue calling on the veterinary surgeons and, if these substances are no longer available to the farmer without restrictions of the kind envisaged in this Bill, the livestock will have to be allowed to die or deteriorate. It is for that reason that at this stage I want to direct the attention of the House to the power taken here to advise the Minister for the purpose of prescribing restrictions on the use of veterinary medicines and that is a power with which I do not think this body ought to be endowed. They should be confined to the other purposes referred to in the Bill which deal with agricultural preparations and poisons in the common interpretation of that word.
I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition, who has a well-informed and well-ordered mind, will see that the question that we should discuss on this section is the composition of the Council which will have the function to advise either the Minister for Health in relation to Section 14 or the Minister for Agriculture in relation to Section 15 and that the scope of the advice or the category of matters on which they may advise could be much better debated on Sections 14 and 15. On the precise point to which Deputy Dillon addressed himself, may I point out that his colleague, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, has an amendment——
Two amendments.
——to Section 15 which raises that specific point and that we would be better advised, I think, to hold our horses until we come to the section on which the discussion would be more closely relevant.
I am prepared to agree to that but I thought it better to put the case on record.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
There are amendments to amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete subsection (1) and to insert the following subsections, namely:
"(1) The Council shall consist of—
(a) two persons each of whom is a registered medical practitioner, has, for a period of not less than ten years before the date of his appointment as a member of the Council, been registered, or been entitled to be registered, in the Register of Medical Practitioners for Ireland and possesses an academic qualification which is higher than the minimum qualification required for such registration and is, in the opinion of the Minister, a desirable qualification as respects membership of the Council,
(b) five persons each of whom is a registered pharmaceutical chemist and has, for a period of not less than ten years before the date of his appointment as a member of the Council, been registered, or been entitled to be registered, in the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists for Ireland,
(c) one person who is a registered dentist and has, for a period of not less than ten years before the date of his appointment as a member of the Council, been registered, or been entitled to be registered, in the Register of Dentists for Ireland,
(d) two persons nominated by the Minister for Agriculture each of whom is a registered veterinary surgeon,
(e) one person with special knowledge and experience of the use of poisonous substances in agriculture nominated by the Minister for Agriculture,
(f) one person whose main occupation is farming nominated by the Minister for Agriculture, and
(g) three other persons (whether or not having any qualification referred to in the foregoing paragraphs).
(2) At least one of the persons referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall be a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland.
(3) (a) Each of three, but not more than three, of the persons referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be a person whose main occupation is either the carrying on of the business of pharmaceutical chemist or in employment as a pharmacist and at least two of those three persons shall be persons who, on the date of their appointment as members of the Council, are members of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland.
(b) At least one of the persons referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be a person whose main occupation is the teaching of pharmacy or a similar subject."
This amendment has been drafted to meet, so far as possible, the various points put forward both in Dáil Éireann and by certain interested organisations in relation to the constitution of the Council.
The function of the Council will be to advise the appropriate Minister in relation to regulations affecting certain particular types of substances. The purpose of the amendment now put down is to broaden the field from which advice may be obtainable so as to make that advice reflect what may be described as the general interest of the community, while at the same time trying to ensure that the size of the Council will not be so great as to make discussion difficult.
As I now envisage, the Council will consist of 15 members instead of 10 as originally intended. It will include, in addition to what was proposed in the first instance, representation for dental and farming interests and the section as amended will provide that doctors, pharmaceutical chemists and dentists on the Council will possess such experience as will ensure a high level of expert advice in relation to matters referred to the Council.
The specific points of difference between the section as originally drafted and the section after this amendment has been adopted is that two doctors will have had to be registered, or entitled to be registered, for not less than 10 years and possess such a higher academic qualification as, in the opinion of the Minister, makes them suitable for membership of the Council. At least one of these two must also be a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. When I specify that qualification, I am not to be taken as suggesting that other post-graduate qualifications may not rank as highly as that specified in the Bill but the fact is that some of the functions which this Council are now to discharge formerly reposed in the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. If I may so put it, the stipulation is a recognition of the fact that by usage, tradition and law, that body have established, so to speak, a prescriptive right to participate in advising the Minister in matters of this sort.
As originally drafted, it was proposed that there should be not less than two members of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland on the Council. Instead of that minimum of two, the amendment provides that the Council will have five and that each of these must be at least ten years registered. It provides that not more than three must be in business as pharmaceutical chemists or employed as such and that, of these three, at least two shall be members of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland. There is one other reservation in relation to pharmaceutical chemists. It is that one of them shall be a teacher of pharmacy or a similar subject.
I have already mentioned that the Council will include among its members a member of the dental profession who must be at least ten years qualified. It is not readily practicable to specify that such a person shall possess a higher qualification in dentistry because these are not commonly looked for and it would unduly restrict the field of choice if such higher qualification were to be prescribed.
Again, we shall have on the Council a person whose main occupation is farming. In addition, there will be two persons instead of one person with special knowledge and experience——
The Minister has forgotten the veterinary surgeons.
I have not. They are provided for in the parent Section. I am enumerating the changes provided for in the amendment. There will be two persons, with special knowledge and experience of the use of poisonous substances in agriculture, to be nominated by the Minister for Agriculture.
In addition there will be three persons chosen at large by the Minister who might be taken as representing the general community which will have a very definite interest in the matters which come before the Council. They may, for instance, be business people or ordinary citizens.
I want to make this clear in regard to the proposed Council: the proposals have been framed to ensure that this body will not be representative merely of narrow, vested interests.
It is not intended that the Council should be used as a battleground of conflicting interests. The function of the Council is to advise the appropriate Minister, the Minister for Health in regard to regulations to be made under Section 14 or the Minister for Agriculture in regard to regulations to be made under Section 15. My purpose is to try to constitute a council which will be a pool of knowledge and experience available to advise the Minister in the interests of the community as a whole as to the controls necessary in the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of poisonous substances. I think I have managed to constitute the Council in such manner that every regulation that comes before it will be considered in the light of the special knowledge which one or other of the members of the Council will possess. They will be able to make recommendations which will reflect generally the consensus of informed opinion and good sense of the Council in regard to any proposed regulations.
I hope the amendment will meet with the general acceptance of the House and give to those who are somewhat apprehensive as to how the Council will function the assurance that it will not deprive any person of any legitimate right he possesses or that it will operate otherwise than merely to advise the Minister as to the best way to safeguard the health of the community, individually and as a whole, by protecting people against the unwarranted distribution and supply of poisons and by ensuring that where poisonous substances are used, there will be adequate safeguards for the user and also for those who, in one way or another, may be affected by the fact that such substances are being utilised for specific purposes.
Deputy Blowick has an amendment to amendment No. 1. Deputy Dr. Browne will get an opportunity later to move his amendment to amendment No. 1. All the amendments can be discussed together.
I move the amendment standing in my name:
In subsection (1) (e) to delete "one person" and substitute "two persons", in subsection (1) (f) to delete "one person" and substitute "three persons" and to delete paragraph (g).
I am wholly dissatisfied with the constitution of the proposed Council.
Hear, hear.
The constitution of the Council in the original Bill was, in my view, scandalous. This amendment represents no improvement. I shall give my reasons for saying that. The Council will have the function of advising both the Minister for Health and the Minister for Agriculture. On the Council as at first constituted there was not a single farmer. We have approximately 380,000 farmers and I think they are worthy of a bigger voice on this Council than just one in 15. The Minister said a few moments ago he was anxious the regulations should be just and correct.
I did not say that. I did not use either of those words.
The Minister may not have used those exact words, but he said he was anxious that any regulation made would not be harsh or extreme. How can the regulations not be harsh on the largest section of our community when there is only one representative of that section on a Council constituted of 15 members? He has now put in three persons without laying down any qualifications at all other than the pious aspirations he uttered here today. I fully approve of a Bill which gives the Minister power to make regulations in regard to the sale of poisons generally. Over the years science has made many advances. It has become the practice now for farmers to become their own vets. to a large extent. If the Council now proposed is established practices and usages may be interfered with. Remember, there has not been one single complaint of accident or death even though farmers all over the country have been using certain poisonous substances by way of vaccine and dosage. Can the Minister advance one single reason why the agricultural voice on this Council should be limited to one?
I daresay it is necessary to tighten up on the sale of poisons generally but there are many anti-biotics and pretty harmless substances which will come within the scope of this Council. Take the case of sheep farmers. There are many diseases associated with lambing. It has become common practice to inject both lambs and ewes with various preparations immediately after lambing and that has resulted in a reduction of mortality in sheep. I refer to diseases such as pulp kidney and fluke. They were very widespread. I have not the slightest doubt that this Council will recommend that the treatments given should be given by veterinary surgeons. There is a sheep farm in the West which extends from Ballinrobe to the gates of Galway City. There would not be sufficient vets in the province of Connaught to deal with that area during the lambing season.
In the creamery areas large numbers of cows suffer from various complaints. Remedies for these complaints and preventives are pretty well known. Under this Council I can see a situation in which recommendations will be made to the Minister for Agriculture that nobody should use these remedies or preventives except a veterinary surgeon. It would be as well for the farmers to hand over their livestock altogether to the veterinary surgeons. There would not, of course, be enough veterinary surgeons to cope with the situation if the regulations I envisage are made. Instead of just one farmer I propose there should be three.
The Deputy does not apparently understand the amendment.
Perhaps the Minister will enlighten my ignorance. The Minister's amendment says "one person whose main occupation is farming nominated by the Minister for Agriculture."
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.