asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the quantities of weedkiller containing the chemical 2, 4, 5-T, which were used by his Department during 1982; and if, in view of the established danger to health from this substance, he will consider prohibiting its use by his Department.

The amount of 2, 4, 5-T used by my Department in the 15-month period ended 30 September last was 690 litres. The formulation of this particular chemical, used under the strictest control by my Department, conforms to the safety requirements of international bodies such as the FAO and the WHO. Moreover, I understand that the Department of Agriculture are satisfied that the formulation available in this country does not pose a threat either to man or the environment. In the circumstances I cannot accept the inference in the second part of the question. Nevertheless, in order to allay public apprehension, even though this apprehension is ill-founded, my Department have decided to phase out its use and no new purchases have been made for some years.

Will the Minister state if the formulation available to the Department of Agriculture contains dioxin?

I have not got that information. All the information I have is what I have stated, namely, that the formulation used here is in conformity with the standard laid down by the FAO and the WHO. The compound contains a substance known as dioxin which in its pure form is a highly dangerous deadly poison. This has been the experience unfortunately in Viet Nam and in Seveso in Italy where an accident occurred resulting in this becoming a health hazard and severely injurious to people. The formulation used here conforms to safety regulations. While I assume there is a dioxin content, it is of such ratio that it seems it poses no threat to the environment or to man.

The whole problem with 2, 4, 5-T is that it contains dioxin and that is 150,000 times more toxic than arsenic. An unnamed spokesman for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry on 14 January indicated that amounts of 2, 4, 5-T were in use in forests in the State. Can the Minister give an assurance that this material is not in use in forests that are open to the public, that are used as nature trails and so on?

The unnamed source mentioned by the Deputy was quite right in stating that this formulation of weed-killer is being used. I have said we have not ordered stocks for some time. We are phasing out its use just to allay public fears which have been ill-founded. The only controls I refer to are those of the FAO and WHO. The Department of Agriculture have stated publicly that they have accepted that this particular formulation is not harmful to man or the environment. The question infers that the use of this substance in areas where there are nature trails to which the public have access could be injurious to them. From the information available to me I could not accept that. I cannot give the Deputy an undertaking that it is not being used in these places because I have not got information on file.

In view of the fact that the Department intend to phase out this material, can the Minister give an assurance that he will ask the Department not to use it in areas frequented by the public?

Again the Deputy is inferring that this substance is harmful but I must reiterate what I have said that it is not regarded as harmful. It is in conformity with standards laid down by the FAO and WHO. To allay ill-founded fears we are not reordering any further stocks and we are phasing out existing stocks. However, if the Deputy wishes I will inquire to see if what he suggest is possible and I will get in touch with him on the matter.