Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I suspect there is no one in the House, including the Minister, who can argue with Senator Henry on the technicalities of this matter. The experience in dealing with any substance which is potentially harmful or toxic is that the people who are least well trained are those who are the most casual. It is a well-documented fact that there are fewer explosions during the off-loading of crude oil at a refinery because the staff there are far better trained and have a greater respect for it. The disaster at Bantry was unsurprising because of the lack of skill available there. All my professional training suggests that the people to whom one must give the most training in terms of being careful with potentially hazardous substances are those who are least qualified and most likely to take shortcuts, whereas the best trained will meticulously observe the letter of good practice because they know better. It is interesting to watch the reactions of people to an exposure to H2S. People who are professionally qualified are wary because they know how toxic it is, while those who are not will regard it as funny because it smells of rotten eggs.

The point Senator Henry made – she was not scaremongering – is that the administration of a potentially toxic drug needs to be under the control of people who have the training and skill to treat the substance with the appropriate degree of respect and care. I am always concerned where people are using one, two or three substances because familiarity with their use can have the opposite effect to that intended. They will tend to take them for granted because they are so familiar with them. One needs the extra training because there are few materials which are not potentially hazardous. The first rule I teach my students is that, if something is neither air nor water, they should neither breathe nor touch it. The first principle is to avoid exposure to any substance. The only good practice is to treat everything as if it is potentially hazardous.

Senator Henry made a convincing case that at least one of the three substances to which the Bill refers is harmful and we need to be careful with it. This issue deserves a lot more thought.