This very important Bill, with 31 Clauses and two Schedules, has had very little discussion on the Floor of the House. The Second Reading was taken after one o'clock in the morning when hon. Members did not desire to keep the House sitting, and with the exception of a protest from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) nothing was said regarding it, and there was not even an introductory speech by the Minister in charge. I am sure that many hon. Members have like myself received protests from members of pharmacists' societies in their divisions protesting against the provisions of the Bill. I understand there are some thousands of registered chemists who are not members of the official society— memembership of which is voluntary—and who have not been consulted regarding the Bill. The Bill as it stands has been approved by the British Pharmaceutical Association but not by some of the other organisations, which include in their membership a large number of the registered chemists throughout the country. Those organisations ought to have been consulted before the Bill was introduced in its present form.

The Bill is divided into three parts. The first deals with the domestic affairs of the society which I have just mentioned. That however is not the most serious part of the Measure. Part II deals with the dispensing and distribution of poisons, and that is, to us, the most important part. Once the public realise what is being done by the Bill especially in Part II they will look upon it with a certain amount of dismay. The proposal of the Bill is to increase instead of restrict the sale of poisons. That was plainly put by the Under-Secretary in Committee. Replying to a question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Law-son) the right hon. Gentleman said: The hon. Member, I think, does Act understand the position. The object of the Bill is to give people who are not now entitled to sell poisons the opportunity of selling them"— He added, it is true, these words— in the interests of the public. It will give ironmongers and grocers a better opportunity to sell poisons than they have at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), Tuesday, 9th May; cols. 29 and 30.] We look upon this extension of the sale of poisons with a good deal of apprehension. We think the Bill ought to restrict and not increase these facilities. Further, there are certain very obnoxious poisons which may be brought in under Part II of the Bill and which traders such as ironmongers and grocers will have an opportunity of selling. The Bill proposes the repeal of all existing legislation dealing with the sale of poisons except the Dangerous Drugs Acts. The Arsenic Act of 1851 in its entirety and the Pharmacy Acts of 1868 to 1908, in so far as they deal with poisons, are to go. The time- honoured poisons schedules are also to be abolished together with the legal distinction, and the object of the Bill is clearly as stated by the Minister in Committee. How far are these extended facilities going to affect the public? There must be some 10,000 pharmacists in the country, and one would have imagined that those pharmacists with their distributive machinery, would provide all the facilities necessary for the sale of poisons.

As far as I can see, there will be little or no restriction. Even if we take the words of the right hon. Gentleman on the Amendment which I moved, if there are five ironmongers and three grocers in a village, the difficulty of the local authority will be to distinguish between the ironmongers and the grocers, as to which -of them should have the opportunity of selling these poisons. I shudder to think what will happen, because it is estimated that there are some 80,000 grocers with separate grocers' shops in the country, some 60,000 ironmongers' shops, and about 100,000 animal food merchants' shops. Are all these traders going to have facilities granted them under Part II of this Bill for the purpose of selling the poisons agreed upon by the Poisons Board which is to be set up?

We say that the distinction between Part I and Part II ought to be, not broadened, but restricted, and we would have all of the poisons—and I could mention quite a number of them—disposed of by persons who are really competent, and when those poisons, obnoxious as they are, are disposed of, a proper record as to their disposal should be kept. My reading of the Bill is that under Part I that is so, but that under Part II that is not so. I may be wrong, and if I am, the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of correcting me. I trust that I am wrong, but, as I read the Bill, in regard to the poisons which are to be sold under Part II, as long as they are sold in proper containers, there is no requirement that the name and address of the person to whom the poison is sold should be retained by the person who sells the poison, and there is no possible opportunity of tracing those poisons, once they have been sold.

The position, as I see it, is that Part II of the Poisons List is to comprise the poisons which may be sold by anyone who is not a qualified pharmacist. According to statements which have appeared in the Journal of the Institute, the intention of the Home Office is that these unqualified vendors shall be restricted to selling only poisons used for agricultural, horticultural, sanitary, and industrial purposes. This means not only that the arsenic and nicotine sheep-dips and weed killers already on sale at village grocers' stores and big suburban ironmongers and corn dealers will continue to be obtainable there, but that these vendors will be allowed to lay in stocks of lysol, carbolic acid, and similar sanitary preparations. Moreover, the sale of cyanide of potassium, corrosive sublimate, oil of vitriol, and other desperately dangerous things used every day for industrial purposes may be allowed to any shopkeeper who claims to be registered as entitled to sell poisons under Part II of the Poisons List.

I have given, I think, sufficient indication that this is a very important Bill, and I repeat that, instead of the Home Office extending the right of shopkeepers to sell poisons such as those which I have described, one would have imagined that in the public interest there would have been a kind of co-ordinating Bill to restrict the sale of those poisons and, when a sale had taken place, make it possible for the person to whom the sale had been made to be traced. Speaking on behalf of the public, I can only say that, with an extension of the facilities such as I have described as likely to take place, the public are likely to view this Bill with a good deal of apprehension. I do not want to cite the number of cases which have been brought to our notice from time to time by the Press, of tragedies which have taken place owing to the very easy manner in which poisons can now be obtained, but I say that there is a possibility of wholesale abuse unless the Home Office regards this Bill, as I regard it, with a good deal of concern. I would that, instead of extending the list of those authorised to sell poisons under Part II, there had been a restriction, and that poisons would have been allowed to be sold only by those proved competent by examination to sell them. For that reason, I have felt it incumbent on my part to express my views on the Third Reading of this Bill.