Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1955

Vol. 45 No. 9

Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Bill, 1955—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

This is the operative section, containing a provision whereby we are going to undo much of what has been done over a number of years. It was thought fit, in order that we should gain our place in the external market, that eggs should be stamped and graded. Much work has been put into that line of activity. I would ask now whether the proposal before us means we are to deviate from all that we have done and whether it will be possible for the Department to define who is to be the particular exporter. There is an important question and one that the Minister has not answered to my satisfaction — what is to be the qualification of the exporter, who is to get these particular licences to export eggs without having them stamped or in boxes which may not show the date of their export?

The Minister might sit back and take this as a Bill that is going to pass through very freely. This is one of the most important Bills that ever came before us. We have had an export trade in eggs over a number of years. We have seen that trade dwindle to what it is to-day. We see the Minister trying to find continental markets, despite all he said in the past "about drowning the British people with eggs", when he made the statement that the British market was the only one open to us. Now he has opened up a new avenue in this Bill. I would like an assurance from him that he or his Department will not be put in a position to open up something that this House would not like to have opened up.

We have a number of registered exporters. How is the Minister to decide how many of these will get the licences? What is the procedure to be adopted? What is the term of months or years that must elapse, to distinguish the regular exporter from the exporter who might be prepared to export just a consignment of eggs, say, to West Germany. He must apply to the Department under this Bill. He must be freed from all the obligations that exist. How long will it take the Department to decide whether he is a fit and proper person?

This Bill is not as simple as the Minister would like to suggest. It means taking out of Parliament a decision and giving it into the Minister's hands — the decision as to which exporters will get these licences and what the qualifications are. We have not heard that. The Parliamentary Secretary — acting for the Minister in the Dáil — suggested that there has been a request from continental people that no longer should there be on the face of the exported eggs the date on which they were exported. If we accept that, it would be a very bad thing. We would all like to open up new markets but we would also like to remove every obstacle and everything that would stand in the way of our exploiting these markets. If there is one thing, to my mind, that would lend itself to sabotaging our prospects, it would be the removal of the date of export of this commodity. I do not see why we should object to having the date on a case of eggs. I think we should make it clear on every case of eggs we export to the Continent what is the date of export. If we want to retain a market, we must be prepared to export our Irish produce under our name and under the date on which it was exported.

I must confess that a great deal of the case the Minister made appeared to me to be reasonable, but I am still not quite convinced that it is really, long term, in our best interest, to adopt the terms of the section, making it easier for foreign importers of eggs to sell older eggs. This is what I think Section 2 amounts to, to make it easier for importers of our eggs to sell older Irish eggs. It obviously would not be in the best interests of the Irish egg industry if we were to enable foreign importers to hold for long periods recognisably Irish eggs.

The Minister tells us that he may even waive the necessity of marking these eggs at all, but I am rather dubious about the morality of such a transaction, because it seems to me that we are making it easier for these importers to slip one over on the public and we do not care, provided the public do not recognise that this is being done with our eggs. I do not want to say anything further on this section, except to put this question to the Minister: Does commercial morality, which is, I grant, not always of a very high standard, vary in accordance with whether we are in a buyer's or a seller's market?

It appeared to me that this was a simple Bill. Senator Sheehy Skeffington raises high questions — is it of morality or of ethics?

Commercial morality — fair dealing.

I take it that, in engaging the Senator, I should engage him on ethics rather than morality. I am not prepared to say that if we sell eggs to a purchaser, we thereby make ourselves responsible for all his subsequent conduct.

Should we make it easier for him to deceive his customers?

Just a moment, if the Senator will permit me. If as Minister for Agriculture, I am responsible for helping our farmers to get markets for eggs, and, acting for them, I find myself one of 20 commercial travellers seeking orders for eggs, 19 of whom say: "We are ready and eager and willing to deliver all the eggs you want as they come from the hen," it causes me some surprise that Senator Sheehy Skeffington should say that his standard of ethics or my standard of morality would be outraged, unless I stand back and say: "Thank God, I am not as these other men; I will not deliver these eggs to you."

That is what you said so far under the present law.

No, no. The Senator is mistaken. We have, in the past, exported eggs exclusively to Great Britain. It was only as a result of a situation arising consequent on the heavy subsidisation of egg production in Britain when the British began, during our period of surplus, to produce required themselves, that we were in Great Britain all the eggs they forced to look further afield to the markets into which we have been making our way only in the course of the last few years. Now, in the British market, where, as I thought I explained, transport problems are almost identical with what they are in the Irish market, we set up what we thought to be optimum marketing practice, not for the advantage of the British consumer, but for the advantage of the Irish producer. My interest was in the Irish producer and in so far as the advantage of the English consumer operated to the advantage of the Irish producer, but only so far as it was to the advantage of the people for whom I stood trustee, my interest and the interest of the English consumer coincided. My interest is to make any market into which I can find a way as profitable as I can make it.

Irrespective of the ethics involved?

That would be to go too far, but my primary concern is to develop that market to the optimum advantage of the Irish producer. When it was possible for the Irish producer to develop a market in Britain, we laid down a code, in the Act of 1930, which operated effectively to that end, but where it emerges that other markets become available and where the implementation of all those regulations would operate, not to the advantage of the Irish producer but to his grave detriment, I am asking the Seanad to say that, in those exceptional circumstances, I should have power to waive some of the regulations.

Senator Hawkins asked what regulations I propose to waive. As at present advised, in respect of one or two markets into which we have found our way, where the practice of marking the individual egg is making it increasingly difficult to sell Irish eggs for the reason that such markets are so remote from our shore that when a person in that market sees an egg described as Irish he instinctively says: "If it has come that far, it must be pretty ancient," he is quite unconscious of the fact that in respect of other eggs offered they have come from New Zealand and Denmark, the latter of which is as far and the other twice as far from the market as we are. Neither of these countries mark their eggs and I am asking the Seanad to authorise me to waive certain regulations, so that, in those circumstances, I shall not be restrained from getting the Irish consumer the same advantage as his New Zealand, Australian or Danish competitor is enjoying in this particular market. The only marks which, as at present advised, I would find it requisite to exempt licensed shippers from is the mark on the egg and the obligation to put the date code mark on the outside of the cases. We will require them to put a date code mark which will be fully comprehensive.

Senator Hawkins wants to know how it will be determined who is to get a licence. Any licensed shipper who wants to sell eggs in these markets is the answer, but, in practice, it very frequently happens that in these markets the admission of our eggs is controlled by quota and, therefore, various exporters undertake to fulfil part of the available quota. That means financial arrangements and the deposit of money here by the importer and a variety of other safeguards to ensure that the eggs consigned will be paid for. All I can do, without attempting to explain to the Senator every administrative step in connection with this trade, is to assure him that in relation to the issuance of these licences to any person who wants and is in a position to sell eggs in these markets, the provision of the licences envisaged under this Bill will present no serious administrative problems.

I am afraid I have been seriously shocked by the Minister and by the standards he asks us to uphold. If I understand him correctly, he contends that we are under no moral obligation to a foreign consumer of our produce except in so far as it suits our pocket. We are prepared to apply high moral and ethical standards only so long as it pays us, and so long as it brings in a dividend, and if not we are prepared to drop all pretence of applying high standards, or, indeed, any standard at all. That is why I say I do not think this is a good standard of commercial morality and I will vote against the Bill.

The Senator wishes to raise ethical questions on this Bill and wishes to maintain that the ethical standards envisaged by this Bill are lower than would commend themselves to him. I think he is suffering his mind to be confused. It is a fantastic proposition to say that if we sell a commodity, sound and honest, to a purchaser, that we are responsible thereafter, for so long as that object survives, for its subsequent disposition. If we sell a product honestly and conscientiously to a purchaser——

To a black marketer, for instance?

It is a fantastic ethical standard to go on to say that we must, further, wherever the purchaser is located, take steps to superintend and police the subsequent disposal of the product——

In so far as in you lies.

May we face this unanswerable fact, that if we claim the right to follow our product into any domestic market——

You lose the money.

No. We lose the market; we do not get in at all. If the Senator is prepared to take up the position that we can set aside the sovereign authority of every country into which we send produce for sale, I say such a stand is ridiculous, fantastic, and absurd. My duty is to get markets, not to play ducks and drakes with markets. My duty is to open the channels of trade and to leave it to our people honestly to trade in it, but the Senator wants to put upon me the obligation of following our merchandise into another jurisdiction, putting aside the domestic Government of the people who will be its ultimate consumer, and saying: "Your Government is dishonest; the Government of the Irish Republic will pursue this egg into the housewife's pot and there superintend its right preparation and if necessary, into her egg cup or on to her breakfast plate, or into her egg nog, if that is what she proposes to use it for."

I have paused this long and detained the Seanad this long to challenge and expose the absurdity of Senator Sheehy Skeffington's proposition because he bases this matter of ethics——

You want to change the present law.

I want to enable our producers honestly to trade in new markets to which they will have no access, if I am not authorised by Oireachtas Éireann to waive certain provisions which were originally designed to govern trade between this country and Great Britain. In so far as ethical considerations arise, I believe, in this matter as in every other, Oireachtas Éireann will continue to maintain as high a standard of ethics as any legislature in the world, east or west of the Iron Curtain. I think it would be deplorable if Senator Sheehy Skeffington were prepared or allowed to sell the proposition that the standard of ethics accepted by Oireachtas Éireann was dominated purely by considerations of profit. The standards of ethics dominating the minds of the legislators of this country are, I think, comparable with those influencing the minds of any legislators in any part of the world, east or west of the Iron Curtain.

Do I take it that the Minister means he is withdrawing this proposal to amend our present law?

I had no intention of participating in this debate and I am doing so now because of the fact that I consider that the debate has taken an unrealistic turn. I would go so far as to say that if certain remarks which the Minister made on the Committee Stage of this Bill had been made on the Second Reading it would have obviated a lot of this discussion. I, for one, am prepared to support the Minister in whatever efforts he is making to find a market for our eggs because I consider it is a matter of vital importance to the agriculturists of this country, those engaged in egg production. As everybody knows, their concern for some time past has been the future prospects of the market.

With regard to the question of ethics and good moral procedure, it is very dangerous for us to set ourselves up in this House as great judges of what should be a proper moral code. In this matter, as in all other commercial matters, I think the general law of caveat emptor should apply: I think the Minister would agree with me in that. After all, if we take a horse or a cow to the fair, it is a question for the judgment of the would-be purchaser, in the first instance, to make up his mind as to whether the animal would be suitable for him, or whether it would be defective. Therefore, I think the Seanad should support whatever measures the Minister and his Department consider are necessary to take to find an export market for our eggs, and I do not think there should be any trouble about the way in which the licences will be issued. The Minister has given us an undertaking that the application of each exporter will be properly considered and that only in necessary cases will the exemption licences be granted.

Question put and declared carried.
Section 3 and Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining stages now.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Barr
Roinn