Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Feb 1936

Vol. 60 No. 5

Agricultural Seeds Bill, 1935—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill deals in a general way with the production and cleaning of seed, and the selling of seed to the purchaser who is about to sow it. Deputies are aware that we either produce seeds or import them, and provision is made under this Bill that we are to get the best possible type of seed whether it is produced or imported. There are also provisions about the licensing of seed cleaners, etc. It is also proposed in this Bill to repeal all existing seeds legislation, so that this, if passed, will be the only Act dealing with that subject. I think as it is a Bill which deals more or less with a lot of small matters, the simplest way to deal with it is to say a few words on some of the sections. Section 3 enables the Minister to prohibit the importation of any class of agricultural seed which it may be found necessary to control, so as to ensure that only strains of approved varieties will be imported, that is to say, varieties which are suitable to this country; and also that imported seed would bear a guarantee that the seed is true to type, that it is pure, and so on. The next section, of course, is a section dealing with the usual licensing clauses where the importation is allowed. Section 5 permits small samples which come in to be exempt from this Order of prohibition, so that seed merchants may be enabled to get in samples without any restriction.

Section 6 deals with the commercial cleaning of seed. As this is a very important matter, and as it will be a growing industry in the country, if we are going to produce our own seed and have it properly cleaned, it will be necessary to license those who engage in that business. The section deals only with what might be termed seed-cleaning on a commercial basis, that is to say, it does not deal with the cleaning of seed, say, by the threshing machine, or with the case of the farmer who cleans seed for himself. I think it will be necessary to have two amendments to this section: first, an amendment giving the Minister power to prescribe from time to time the classes of seed to which this section will apply, and, secondly, an amendment giving the farmer the right to clean seed for his own use even though he does not produce it. The section as it stands would not give the farmer that right. Section 8 provides for penalties for the sale of seed containing an excessive percentage of injurious weed seeds. It is dealt with in that way purposely rather than by prescribing a certain purity of seed, because it is more injurious to purchase, say, grass seed which contains a small percentage of weed seed than to purchase grass seed that is only impure in so far as it contains another good grass seed. To take an example: say a person purchases what purports to be Italian rye-grass, but which might contain say 10 per cent. of perennial rye-grass. That would not perhaps do as much harm as if he purchased what was supposed to be Italian rye-grass and which contained 2 or 3 per cent. of dock seeds. What we mean to prescribe, therefore, under this section is that it must not contain more than a certain percentage of stated noxious weeds.

What is the percentage?

Dr. Ryan

It will be stated from time to time. We will make it small, naturally. Packeted seeds are dealt with under Section 9. There appears to be some abuse in the sale of packeted seeds. Some traders who have seeds in packets left over sell them the following year. We have to deal with that abuse as far as we possibly can. We have to see that the packets will be properly dated, and that the origin and any other information which will be asked for will be marked on the packet. There is, by the way, a mistake in line 31. The word "box" should be "bag". That will be amended on the Committee Stage. Section 10 enables the Minister to prescribe, if necessary, the form of invoices, so as to secure that the purchaser is definitely assured that he is getting the variety or strain which he wishes to buy. We have not got sufficient powers at the present moment dealing with that matter, and I think it is most important that those invoices should give the necessary information to the purchaser. If that had been the law for the past two or three years we would not have had the same difficulty in the case of certain varieties of winter wheat which were sold as spring wheat.

Section 11 is to ensure to the producers of pure seed that they will not have their crop either cross-fertilised or injured by certain flowering plants growing in the vicinity. Section 12 goes a bit further, and would be brought into operation only where Section 11 fails. Sections 11 and 12 may become much more important sections as time goes on. If we find that the present experiments, which we are carrying out, are successful and arrive at a stage where we feel we can produce our own root seeds here—turnips, beet and so on—it will be necessary to see that there are no flowering plants in the neighbourhood that would injure those crops. For instance, if we are producing turnip seed we might have to make an Order against having rape flower in the vicinity. If we are producing beet we might have to make an Order against mangolds and even parsnips growing in the vicinity and coming to the flowering stage. Section 12, as I say, is more drastic than Section 11 and would be resorted to only if Section 11 proves to be ineffective in any particular area or in regard to any particular crop.

How could such a case be brought before the Minister?

Dr. Ryan

I do not exactly know what the Deputy means by that. Perhaps he would ask me afterwards, as I should like to know what he means by that. Section 13 re-enacts the provisions in existing legislation in regard to the sale of agricultural seeds. It gives more power in the taking of samples and in the testing of those samples. Of course, we have at present power to take samples from seed merchants, and it has been the practice to publish the names of seed merchants where the seeds are not up to standard. If the seed merchant is found to have offended on a number of occasions he is put upon a black list issued by the Department. This section will run very much on the same lines, except that power is taken to take samples at market places and so on, in addition to the shops where these things are sold.

I think that that practically covers all that there is to be covered in this legislation upon seeds. It will probably be necessary to introduce two or three amendments to which I have referred. The necessity for the Bill, I am sure, is recognised by all Deputies, and I shall be only too glad to get any helpful suggestions that may be given for further amendment if necessary.

The general principle of protecting farmers from impure and unsatisfactory seeds is, of course, something in which we would all wish to co-operate and the important thing in carrying out a reform of this kind is, one, to be practical, and the other, not to be too radical, lest popular opinion be raised against your well-intentioned efforts to protect the people from fraud of any kind. The first question that arises in my mind is this. Section 1 purports to define agricultural seeds. It is elaborated by Section 2, which says that for the purposes of this Act the Minister may from time to time prescribe, by order, the classes of seeds which shall be agricultural seeds. The Minister ought to tell us what class of seed he has in mind, because it is not easy to envisage clearly what is going to be prescribed as agricultural seeds when you read the rest of the Bill. Do bulbs come under the heading of seeds? Does the Minister intend to include seed potatoes? Has he principally in mind agricultural or horticultural seeds? Does he consider that the Bill covers tubers, such as are popularly sown for the production of certain types of vegetables—seakale, rhubarb, and plants of that character?

The practice heretofore in Bills of this kind has been to annex to the Bill a schedule setting out at least the types of seed which the Minister proposes to deal with. That practice is here departed from. We are introduced to the sound old bureaucratic practice: "Give us the power and we will do the job." Section 2 says, in effect: "Give us the power to say what things this Bill will deal with and we will inform the public what is best." I think it is a pity, because it makes it more difficult to offer helpful suggestions of one kind or another.

The seed cleaning provisos, I assume, are really in effect going to create a privileged class of importers, because we are going to have a register of persons engaged in the business of cleaning agricultural seeds. We are going to have powers to prohibit and to restrict imports of agricultural seeds. Sooner or later the Minister will want to admit a certain quantity of agricultural seeds, and he will have to admit that quantity of seeds through some roster of merchants. I take it that is going to be the seed cleaners. The Minister ought to let us know what he has in mind in that connection.

Section 9 deals with the sale of seeds, retail, in packets. I have a good deal of experience of this trading in agricultural seeds and my experience of it is that you have three types of person engaged in the distribution of agricultural seeds in this country. You have the seed importer, the man who is doing seeds in a big way, probably packaging a large quantity of vegetable and root seeds under proprietary names and selling, wholesale, large quantities of seed oats and seed grasses. These people are mostly to be found in Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Dublin and the ports. They would do a considerable retail trade and they would also send wholesale supplies to rural distributors—I want rural distributors to mean the shopkeepers in the larger centres, in the more considerable towns. They are the second string in the business of seed distribution. In addition to these, you have the smaller shopkeeper, whose place of business is at the country cross-roads and who is doing a small business in seeds. You want to ensure that all these three types of seed merchants will sell to the farmers seeds which are accurately described for what they are and which have not deteriorated as a result of being kept too long, from year to year, or deteriorated from damp or some other condition that obtains in the places where they have been stored.

I have often thought of how best that problem could be surmounted and it is very difficult to make suggestions unless one knows what the Minister has in mind. When you are dealing with grass seeds, perennial and Italian, it is very difficult to sell them in sealed packets, for this reason, that the average small farmer who comes in will tell you how much land he wants to sow and he wants the supplier to weigh and mix for him a perennial rye grass that he will use on that piece of land. One man will have a rood, another man will have an Irish rood, another man will have two statute roods, and you never can tell from customer to customer what quantity you will have to supply. So it is very difficult to arrive at a standard package that will fit into everybody's requirements.

No such difficulty exists in respect to turnips or root seeds, but the difficulty does exist in a very acute form in respect to grass seeds other than Italian and perennial. I have always believed that one of the great necessities of the seed trade was to introduce Irish farmers, who are sowing grass seeds, to a better variety and a better assortment of grass seeds than they have been in the practice of sowing. In large parts of this country men will buy Italian, perennial and English red clover. Well, that is an extremely bad assortment of seeds, but it is very difficult to introduce them to Manifesto and Timothy and the other varieties of meadow grasses that ought to form part of any grass-seed mixture. It would be almost impossible if you were selling any of these minor grass seeds in sealed packages, but there is a great range of seeds that can conveniently be sold in packages.

I should like to provide that all retailers—all distributors—of agricultural seeds should be licensed, and that any person who wished to sell agricultural seeds without taking out a licence would be precluded from selling them except in packages which had been sealed by a licensed seed dealer. Now, that means that you would have licensed seed dealers in Dublin. Go down to a town like Mullingar and there might be three merchants there who would apply for licences to be seed dealers and they might get their licences and they might sell agricultural seeds in the package of another licensed dealer, or they might buy agricultural seeds in bulk and package them themselves putting their own name on the packet and the statutory information that all packeted seeds would be required to bear. Then you would have the small cross-roads shopkeeper who, for the convenience of his neighbours, might also wish to sell seed. I would let him sell them on condition that he sold them in the sealed package of a licensed seed dealer. He could buy that from the local seed dealer or get his supply direct from a Dublin seed dealer, but you would ensure that no one would be authorised to offer to a farmer any agricultural seeds which did not bear upon the package the date, the quality, and the guaranteed germination. I do not believe that such a condition is going to be onerous or impossible, and I believe it would be an enormous improvement on the existing arrangement.

Now, however, when you come to the question of seed oats and grass seed, I should very much like to hear from some other Deputies whether they think it would be practicable to provide that seed oats should only be sold by seedsmen who are holding themselves out as giving a certain high-grade commodity in sealed bags. At present, I have had more than one case brought under my notice in which merchants who had little or no knowledge of agricultural matters offered and actually sold kiln dried oats for seed oats, and men have gone out and prepared their land, sowed their crop, and of course not a grain ever came to germination at all. I am afraid that there is very grave danger that an unscrupulous merchant, if he had some feeding oats on his hands—kiln dried oats that he could not get rid of—and if he had a considerable trade in seed oats, could very easily mix the kiln dried oats in with the seed oats and sell them. Mind you, at present the inspectors come in and take a sample of your seeds and send them away. I grant you that, but there is nothing to prevent any man, after the oats have been tested in the bin, or wherever he is exposing them for sale, once the inspector has gone and the merchant feels pretty sure that he will not be coming back for a certain time—there is nothing to prevent that merchant introducing some of these kiln dried oats into the seed oats that he has for sale. I think it should be possible to prescribe that seed oats offered for sale by a seed merchant must be offered in a bag bearing particulars just as a bag of Indian meal at the present time bears certain particulars. When you come to grass seeds, however, I do not see how it could be done, with the exception of clover which, at present, is sold in almost all cases in sealed bags with a full description of its origin and other relevant facts.

I cannot quite understand whether this Bill would interfere with the ordinary course of trade that proceeds in our markets. The present practice is that the farmer brings in oats to the market and offers them for sale as seed, or for food purposes, and so on. I do not think the Minister ought to interfere with that practice, at present at any rate, because it would be a very great nuisance and would cause very great loss to many farmers. The sound general rule of a purchaser going into a market is caveat emptor. He knows when he is going into the open market that he is buying something that he cannot expect to be of as high a quality or as scrupulously guaranteed as something that he would buy in a sealed bag with a written guarantee, and, to interfere with that well-established practice at the present juncture would be to do something much more radical than the situation would justify.

The Minister, under Sections 11 and 12, deals with the problem he foresees may arise when we are producing original seeds in this country. Now, to tell the truth, all this talk about producing original agricultural seeds in this country for the requirements of Irish farmers is moonshine, because so long as we want the right strains of whatever crops we are going to produce, a large part of the agricultural and even of the horticultural seeds we use must be imported. Take, for instance, onions and carrots. The Minister contemplates urging a wider cultivation of onions as a semi-agricultural market-garden crop in this country. You cannot grow onion seed in this country. You have got to import it from abroad— either from South Italy or, I think, from Northern Africa. Onion seed will not grow here. Then take carrot seeds. You cannot grow carrot seeds here.

What? Did the Deputy say that you cannot produce carrot seeds here?

Yes. You cannot produce carrot seeds here.

Well, go on. Develop that general statement you made here.

You cannot grow carrot seeds here, and there are a number of other seeds which, for the ordinary market agricultural business, cannot be effectively and properly produced here. In addition to that, I do not believe in this business of seriously interfering with the free supplies of the raw materials of an important industry. Agriculture is an important industry in this country, and our agriculture is the agriculture of the finished product. It is the greatest folly, in order to promote an entirely subsidiary business, to jeopardise a very important industry like the agricultural industry by interfering with its supplies of raw material. Good seeds—the best seeds the world can produce—are the raw material of Irish agriculture and, in my opinion, any intensive campaign to restrict access to foreign markets for the best seeds that money can buy would be a grave mistake in policy and a mistake into which no other country in the world that I know of has fallen. A lot of people think that the seeds required for agriculture in Great Britain are grown in Great Britain. As a matter of fact, less than 2 per cent. of the seeds required for agriculture in Britain are grown there. Seeds are grown all over the world and the best stocks picked out and distributed to the British farmer.

Something has occurred to my mind, however, in connection with these restrictive powers contained in Sections 11 and 12, and I should be glad to hear from the Minister whether the Department of Agriculture has any view on this question or not. Every good farmer is plagued by an incompetent neighbour. Under the Thistles Act, or one of those Acts of Parliament, that situation is recognised, and you can compel by law a lazy neighbour to cut his thistles before they seed the neighbouring land. Here, under Section 11, we can compel a man to remove a crop before it seeds, and under Section 12, unless he shows himself willing to do that, we can prohibit him from growing the crop. I wonder has the time come to consider whether farmers who grow potatoes, for instance, should not be required to spray before a certain date? If every farmer in a district sprayed in time to prevent blight striking the potato crop at all, you should be able to keep blight out of the district altogether, for that season in any case. It is only when the disease gets a grip in a particular district that it spreads round about the particular focus of the disease.

There are other diseases of that kind which are spread from the land of one farmer to that of another. I do not know what the cause of smut is, but I believe it is largely a disease which infects wheat seed rather than being air-borne by the plant itself. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the occurrence of smut in wheat is likely to contaminate the wheat of a neighbouring field, the seed of which was free from that contamination. Can that wheat disease be borne from one crop of wheat to another, and, if it can, can smut in one field affect wheat in another field, or can it affect the seed that would be obtained from the second crop and pass on the disease into the crop that would be grown from that seed? If so, I think we ought to consider ways and means, possibly through the agency of local associations, to secure that proper precautions will be taken by farmers growing crops in order to avoid the disease attacking their crops, thus jeopardising the crops of their neighbours.

Section 14 is the usual objectionable kind of section. "The Minister may by order make regulations for the purpose of prescribing any matter or thing which is referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed." Well, of course, that is the usual practice of legislating by order and we have not the faintest notion of what the nature of these orders is going to be. The Minister has not told us what be intends to schedule as agricultural seed. I object, in principle, to any section of that kind. The Minister ought to inform us what he considers necessary and seek our co-operation in getting whatever powers he stands in need of, without putting in sections giving him power to legislate by regulation. He may rest assured that he will get all the co-operation he wants on this side of the House, in making his purpose effective, but there are a number of points which I have mentioned on which I should like to have information as to what the expert view of the Department of Agriculture is.

I am glad to see this Bill introduced though it deals more with the commercial aspect of seed than it does with the production of seed. Deputy Dillon made the general statement that he hoped there would be no ramp towards the development and the raising of seed on a big scale in this country. I think that is the gist of the general statement made by the Deputy. I will agree with him this far, that I hope there will be no ramp merely for the sake of saying a few pounds, for saving the little expense, very little comparatively, that imported seeds cost us. I have always been a strong believer in the production of native seeds, not for the sake of the few pounds that would be saved, even if the cost of the seeds were to be doubled. I am a firm believer, however, in the raising of seeds in this country that will have, so to speak, a sufficient infusion of new blood but which, at the same time, are acclimatised to this country. Ordinary seeds which can be raised in this country successfully will produce better results in the second and third year after importation than the first year.

I shall give what I consider a classic instance of the advantage of seeds being acclimatised. Some ten years ago, under the Committee of Agriculture for County Dublin, I carried out an experiment with 12 different varieties of Savoy cabbage. These were obtained from the leading seedsmen in England and they were informed that the seeds were being utilised for experimental purposes. There was either a half pound or a pound of each variety. It was a large-scale experiment. The best seeds that these merchants had— it was in their interests to provide the best seeds—were provided and they were grown alongside and under similar conditions to an old Dublin strain of Savoy cabbage that had not been raised by any scientific methods other than the methods that were handed down from father to son for about 100 years in the Country Dublin. There was no comparison between the value of those best seeds supplied us by the British seedsmen and the native variety. To give an instance, on the same day I had similar loads in the Dublin market. I got 15/- per load for the British strain and £5 per load for the Dublin strain. I have heard that the Dublin strain was sent to England but that its cultivation there had disastrous results. There is a broccoli, a native of County Dublin, a strain which, when grown here, surpasses anything that can be bought from the seed merchants in this country or Britain, but it was brought over to England and it was a failure there. The Minister cannot be expected to know everything or to hear everything, but it would be worth his while to inquire because I know the experimenters—whether that is the technical term or not, I do not know—in the Albert College in Glasnevin can verify what I am saying.

I hope this Bill is not going to be an end in itself, but that it is going to be the small beginning of a big move, and that the Minister, or whatever Minister may succeed him, will not be concerned to save a few pounds, but that, if necessary, he will spend a few pounds, because the Minister or the farmer who tries to economise in money in the matter of seeds is neither a Minister nor a farmer. Anybody who buys seeds should buy the best, for an expenditure of a few shillings in seeding is very little compared with the pounds that will be won or lost when the crop is harvested. I thought Deputy Dillon was developing a point about the mixing of grass seeds. I do not think the Bill precludes a seed merchant from mixing grass seeds for customers. I always prefer to get grass seeds mixed by a merchant of repute, and I do not know whether the time has not come to consider whether the cross-roads merchant mentioned by Deputy Dillon should be permitted to continue in the seed trade. I think the matter should be examined. Most people consider that the handling of seeds is no more than the handling of tea, sugar, eggs or butter, but the handling of seeds is a specialised trade, and, so far as the commercial end of it is concerned, I do not think it should be let out of the hands of the specialists.

The same applies to artificial manure although we are not dealing with artificial manure. The seed must be right and it is not good enough to have it right originally. It must be handled properly until it is put into the ground. The Minister should consider whether the people who are handling seed throughout the country understand the handling of it, because, after all, on the seed that is put into the soil depends the crop that will be harvested and the volume and quality of that crop. I am quite sure that the Minister, having taken up this matter, will look after the commercial side of it, but I urge him not to let the grass grow under his feet before we start raising in this country the seeds of all the ordinary crops grown here. Beet has become an important crop in this country, whatever we may think of it. I had no illusions about it at any time. I knew it could never be grown economically here on the present sugar contest of beet, and neither can it, but if we could raise the sugar contest of beet to 25 per cent., it would be a commercial proposition and it would be a crop that we could grow and which would stand on its own.

I think the Minister should give special attention to having selections made of beet with a high sugar content and breed new strains of beet seed in this country, because in no other way will beet be a success in the future. It is all very well to say that people are anxious to grow beet now. Of course, they are, but if we had normal conditions, in which every crop and every animal would pull its normal weight in the agricultural economy, I think the Minister would find it very difficult to get the raw material for his factories. That was my opinion before the factories were established, and it is my opinion still, and the opinion of many others. Yet I do not think any of us would like to see those factories becoming idle. We all want to see them working at full tilt and to see the people of this country getting the produce of those factories at a reasonable price. I suggest that is the only way in which we can make sure of the permanency of sugar beet production in this country.

I am somewhat rusty as to the history of sugar beet cultivation now, but I think I am right in saying that, when sugar beet production was first thought of, there was only a sugar content of three or four per cent. By scientific breeding of selected roots and by raising from them a strain of seed, sugar beet has been brought to its present state. I believe that this country has surprised many experts in regard to the high sugar content of its beet. If that is so, is there not opened up a very inviting field for plant breeding and the raising of new strains of seed in relation to beet, native to this country? The same applies to nearly all seeds. I am not so sure of onion seed but the carrots and the parsnips which hold their place in the Dublin market in competition with any other strains, are strains generations old, raised in the village of Rush.

Is that true of carrots?

I was told that carrot seed had to be imported.

You cannot beat the Rush man for carrots. Whatever can be raised here, the experience of all of us has been that, when it becomes acclimatised, it is better than it was when it was foreign to this soil, and, as we are so very near the wind in the matter of beet, it is very important that the Minister should set his machinery in motion to produce better strains, if possible. He may go on for years, and if he starts the effort, it may perhaps be the fourth or fifth Minister for Agriculture ahead who may have the honour of producing that prolific strain that may mean the difference between uneconomic sugar production and economic sugar production. But no matter what Minister garners the honour of that experiment, I think the greatest honour will lie with the Minister who starts it, because if it is not started nobody can ever reap the reward of it.

As I understand it, the purpose of this Bill is to handle seeds in a commercial way. I think it is correct to say that those who are seed merchants and nothing else all have their own cleaning machinery. I would like to know from the Minister if he has taken them into consultation. My information is that he has not, but I hope I am wrong. I may say that this Bill has caused something more than a flutter amongst the seed merchants. I have been in touch with them. I am aware that they contemplate holding a meeting. That does not mean that they are in any way hostile to or in opposition to the Minister. The object is to get an expression of their views. The result of its deliberations may be available for Deputies before the Committee Stage of the Bill is taken. I think that in matters of this kind people who are specialists should be consulted by the Minister, because they can teach those who cannot claim to have that advantage, and, of course, the Minister appreciates that. I am sure he is not offended with me for saying that. A specialist can also teach the Department.

I do not think there is anything to be said against the Bill. The Minister stressed the necessity of having to use compulsory powers in a locality where seeds were being raised in order to compel owners of land in which related crops were growing wild and seeding to remove them. I am glad that it is proposed to do that. It should have been done years ago. It is an extraordinary thing that the Department of Agriculture has power to compel farmers to cut weeds—a very good thing—but that neither it nor the county committee of agriculture had power to interfere with a man who was raising in an adjoining field bolters of turnips from a nondescript type of cabbage and allowing these to remain in flower and cross-fertilise with a pure breed of seed on his neighbour's land. The Bill is worthy of support for that one provision alone, as it will put an end to that kind of thing. My only regret is that the Bill does not go far enough in an experimental way.

Look at Section 14.

What is the use of having a Minister if you do not give him power?

That will give him plenty.

If the Minister uses foolishly the power that you give him then remove him. The Minister must have power to do these things. I will tell the Deputy an experience I had a few years ago. A man who was endeavouring to save a strain of Dublin-Savoy cabbage in the village of Swords came to see me. He had a promising crop, but beside him was a neighbour who had bolters of York cabbage and wild turnips growing in his field. This man believed that these were deliberately planted and kept there in order to spoil his seed. I was Chairman of the Dublin County Committee of Agriculture at the time. He came to me and sought my advice. I found that there was no authority to stop his neighbour from what he was doing. The Department of Agriculture also found that they had no authority to interfere. What happened? I tried bluff. I wrote a letter ordering this other man to have these bolters removed. It worked. Is it not much better that the Minister should have the power that he seeks in this Bill rather than that the chairman of a county committee of agriculture should use bluff to get the right thing done?

I quite agree—up to a point, I am all in favour of it.

When the Minister for Agriculture is not on a political platform I regard him as a sane and sensible man, and I am sure he will do the right thing in connection with this Bill. He will also get good advice from his officials, and therefore I am satisfied that the right thing will be done. In a matter of this kind I would rather see the Minister with too much power than with too little. I hope the Bill is only the beginning of a development for the raising of seeds here—for the sake of the seeds and not for the sake of saving a few pounds.

I think this is a Bill that is badly needed, and I welcome it. I could not understand which of the two legs Deputy Dillon was standing on in regard to oats. First, he wanted all seed oats to be sold through a merchant. Then he went on to develop that argument by saying that the Minister should not throw away the seed oats market. Farmers find that oats grown on limestone land gives the best return. Farmers in portion of my constituency are very glad to go out to Glanworth, where they grow a special strain of oats on limestone land. They buy their oats there. The farmers in that district take very good care of their seeds in preparing them. Messrs. Bennett, of Ballinacurra, have been accustomed to give out both seed oats and seed barley to certain special farmers. They visit the crop three or four times a year to see that all weeds, etc., are removed from it, and then pay an extra £1 or £2 per ton for the oats after harvest. They buy it in again as seed. In that manner they get special varieties of seed that have been well grown and cared for, and that can be guaranteed in the market. I hope that we are not going to have the position in which all farmers will have to take in their oats to the seed merchant, sell it to him, and in that way allow him to make the extra profit that should go direct to the farmer from it. With regard to Deputy Belton's remarks on beet, I can tell him that tests were carried out last year with several varieties of beet seed with a view to ascertaining the relative sugar content. My opinion is that the new policy of the Sugar Company is absolutely fatal in that respect.

Hear, hear.

A flat rate on beet tonnage, without any regard to sugar content, is absolutely fatal. I can see no cure for it.

It will kill the industry.

I do not know whether Deputy Belton has ever studied the effects of weather on sugar content, or whether he knows that a beet crop pulled this week may have a totally different sugar content from that of the two next drills pulled a fortnight afterwards. Weather has a very great effect on sugar content. I could understand the attitude of the Sugar Company where they have to leave the beet over from one month to another before taking it into the factory. I am sure that Deputy Belton understands that the beet-root with a high sugar content gives a rather low tonnage, and that, when you are paying on tonnage, the natural inclination of the farmer—more power to him—is to grow the big fellow, irrespective of sugar content. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to points arising in connection with Italian and perennial rye-grass. I suggest that the Minister ought to have a very careful survey made of the quantity of good seeds available and that whatever extra quantity of these seeds is required should be allowed in free of duty.

Like Deputy Belton, I am an absolute believer in the home-grown strains of seed. I believe that seeds grown in this country are better acclimatised than seeds grown in any other country and give better results. I went to the trouble of looking up the import lists of grass seeds. Unfortunately, the seeds are not segregated in that list. You cannot ascertain from that list the quantities of perennial or rye-grass seeds imported separately. I suggest to the Minister that it would be worth while to discover these quantities, to find out what quantity of these seeds will be available, and to allow in the remainder free of duty. My particular interest in this matter is that perennial and Italian seeds are used principally by tillage farmers. They are not what we call permanent grass seeds. They are generally used by good tillage farmers, who plough their land very frequently. I think that a special concession should be made by the Minister, and that whatever quantity of these seeds must be imported should be allowed in free of duty.

Deputy Dillon referred to grass seeds being mixed. The agricultural instructors in each county give advice free to farmers in different localities as to the varieties of seed most suitable to their soil. From what I know of the farmers in my district, the advice of the instructors is very widely availed of. I suggest that when merchants are selling mixed seeds an invoice list of the mixture should be given, just as guarantees are given in the case of oats and barley in regard to germination and purity.

I think that the Bill will greatly assist in ensuring that the seeds are free from weeds and other growths which ruin the farmer's crop in many instances. Like Deputy Belton, I hope that this is only the first Bill of this kind. I hope, too, the Minister will not confine his activities in this line to the introduction of Bills in the Dáil. When grants are being given to committees of agriculture, he should insist on portion of these grants being used for educational purposes in pure-line seeds. If a little money were given in that way and a little less to the bullring, it would have a far better effect on the farmers. I welcome the Bill and I hope that the Minister will see that Bills of this type are enforced. Any advice or assistance he requires from the farming community in general will be forthcoming.

I agree with the principle of this Bill and I think that it will be of advantage to the farming community to be put in a position to get the best quality of any seeds which they propose to sow. There is one matter to which I should like to refer —that is, to the question of grasses and clover seeds. That is by far the dearest crop put into the land, and a great deal of care and consideration are necessary before a farmer can decide what is the best mixture for his particular farm. He should be guaranteed when ordering the seeds that they are up to standard in purity and germination. There are complaints from farmers from time to time that seeds were a failure. That may be due to many different causes. Seeds could be a failure if they were poor seeds, if the tillage was bad, or if the weather was bad when they were sown. The aim of the Minister in trying to secure for farmers a pure breed of any particular seed will be very welcome. The agricultural instructors in the different counties give very useful information and numbers of boys who intend to remain on farms attend the classes that they conduct. It is surprising how interested these boys become in that work and in testing seeds for quality and purity. If the Minister could possibly help more in that direction it would be very useful to the farming community. As to the rougher seeds, such as barley and oats, it is not so very hard to decide on the variety that should be sown. What farmers aim at is to get seeds that give good quality as well as quantity. They have also to take into consideration the quality of the straw from oats, from the point of view of feeding. There is a great difference in the varieties of oats particularly. A very useful book has been sent around to farmers by the agricultural instructors in which is given an account of what is done on the different demonstration plots, as well as the yield of the various crops in barrels per acre or ton. That is very helpful.

It is a mistake to think that a particular variety will suit every land. The variety and the quality of seeds that will grow and do well in one townland may not do well in the next townland. That is well known from practical experience. A change of seed is looked upon as being more or less essential after three or four years. Very few farmers that I know would think of sowing the same variety of seed year after year. Even if they wished to continue sowing the same variety they would get a change from another area as there are always better results. Any help that the Minister can give in securing the best quality of seeds will be welcomed.

With regard to the power the Minister is taking in the Bill, I ask him to be slow about using it until he sees how things are going, and what efforts are being made by farmers to do what they think is best for themselves. Beet seed as far as I know is not produced in this country. The Minister might be alert about that, considering that the price of beet is on a flat rate per ton. The quality of seed that is wanted is one that would give a fair tonnage and a fair sugar content, so that the farmers would have something decent to get out of the growing of beet. A high sugar content will not give farmers a very big return, while there is a flat rate in operation for beet. The Minister should be very careful about that question. I am sure farmers will be inclined to give the Minister any help they can give.

What is the average tonnage of beet per statute acre?

Dr. Ryan

For a number of years it is 10.5. Deputy Dillon spoke about packet seeds. He may have given me a wrong impression of what he meant to convey, but I want to say that we do not encourage in this Bill the sale of seeds in packages. The matter is dealt with in Section 9. It is really a very small and unimportant trade at present as against the total amount of seeds sold. Perhaps if there is anything that should be discussed it could be dealt with under Section 9. With regard to the sampling of seeds, the procedure followed for some years has been satisfactory. It will be improved, of course, by some of the additional powers of inspection at markets, and with the better invoicing of seeds, so that farmers will know from the invoice what the seeds are supposed to be, and will also have a better idea of what they get. There is also more power to take action afterwards if they did not get what they wanted. It is not proposed in this Bill to deal with bulbs, roots, etc. The seeds regarded as agricultural seeds are ordinary cereals, grass seeds, clover seeds, cabbage seeds, and root seeds, but not bulbs, potatoes, or any such that do not come under the definition of agricultural seeds. The provision regarding the taking of samples at markets, to which attention has been drawn, was put in principally to deal with a practice that prevails in certain parts of the country where any amount of inferior grass seeds, the sweepings of lofts, etc., are sold.

Deputy Dillon talked of the danger, perhaps under this Bill, of endeavouring to produce seeds that might not be suitable for our climate. His argument was that we must have the best and that we must import them. Deputy Belton dealt fully with that point, and I do not think there is any necessity to go further into it. I agree with Deputy Belton that even seeds we do not produce at present, such as beet, may possibly be better grown here when we get down to the proper variety. As Deputy Belton pointed out, it will take many years before that can be done. At any rate, it is the duty of the Department of Agriculture to carry on whatever experiments are necessary for that purpose, to see if we cannot get a better type of beet than we have at present. The same thing would apply to other agricultural crops. Deputy Dillon asked whether we had ever considered the question of compulsory spraying of potatoes. That question was considered on many occasions by the Department, and the conclusion invariably was that it would be impossible to get every farmer to spray. But without that compulsion it has become almost universal. It is true perhaps, as Deputy Dillon stated, that the few who do not spray are doing a considerable amount of harm. I am afraid it would be impossible to go further with the spraying arrangements.

In the case of smut, it is not an air-borne disease. In fact, I have noticed, and I am sure others have noticed, heads which are isolated and other heads all round them, almost touching them, have remained free from the disease; but when that particular head is threshed and the grain is mixed, then the whole lot of grain is likely to become contaminated.

With regard to this question of sugar beet, one of the clauses in the Bill, clause 12, would be absolutely necessary if we were to attempt to grow sugar beet seed, because the great danger in trying to get the best possible type of sugar beet would be cross-fertilisation with flowering mangolds, parsnips, garden beet and sugar mangolds. It would be necessary to have the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 in force and perhaps to take over a certain district and keep it entirely clear of these other plants at least reaching the flowering stage, in order to produce the best possible type of sugar beet. Experiments we have carried out so far with sugar beet have proved that we can produce beet seed here. We do not yet know whether it is good or otherwise. It will take a good many years to get that seed proved, as Deputy Belton says, by growing a field of beet from our own seed, taking out all that beet, finding out what is the strain that is giving the highest sugar content and then getting down to half-a-dozen plants of a certain type and growing seeds from them. It will take years before we succeed in developing here a variety of sugar beet seed that is superior to the one we are growing. But it is worth continuing to experiment and persevering to see if it is possible.

I do not agree with Deputy Belton that sugar beet would not be grown if other prices were to improve. I think what Deputy Belton and others have in mind is if we were getting as good prices as British farmers for all their produce. The British farmers are continuing to supply the factories in England with beet, even though the price is not superior to ours.

What is the price of beet there?

Dr. Ryan

I could not give the exact figure, but if the Deputy looks up the figures he will find that the price paid by the British factories for this season's crop was not any better than ours on the average, taking the price of pulp and so on into account. We have not consulted the seed merchants in connection with this Bill, because it was felt they were not very much affected by it. Seed cleaning is meant to apply at present only to the cleaning of grass and clover seeds. We do not intend to bring that section into operation to deal with the seed merchant who buys oats and barley and wheat, cleans that seed, and sells it again. As at present intended, that will not come under the regulations, but as time goes on it is quite possible that gradually those people may be brought in, and that is one of the reasons why it is necessary, in legislation of this kind, to have such things done by regulation.

Deputy Holohan said that he would advise me not to go too fast with the powers that I am seeking under this Bill. It is intended to go very slowly, but the only way in which we can give effect to Deputy Holohan's advice is to do the thing by regulation. Perhaps after a few years we may bring in the cleaning of oats and cereals, but it would be rather difficult to have to bring in amending Bills every time these changes are made, and the most effective way to do it is by regulation. If seed merchants have any observations to make, I shall be very glad to hear them, and if Deputy Belton is in touch with seed merchants I shall be glad to get any advice they may be able to give.

I am not convinced that it is necessary to interfere further with the seed trade. Deputy Dillon did make a suggestion that it might be better to license everybody in the seed trade and control the whole trade much more effectively than we propose under this Bill. I think it is not necessary, and I am sure Deputy Dillon will agree with me that if it is not necessary we should not do it; we should allow the freedom that is there, and I think we ought to allow that freedom until we see what can be done under this type of legislation, for the present, at any rate.

I may assure Deputy Corry that we could never go so far as to prevent one farmer selling some seed oats to another. Deputy Corry asked me what was the quantity of rye grass available, and whether, if we had not sufficient produced within the Saorstát, we will let it in free of duty. I think there will be no shortage. In fact, the people dealing with it are very much afraid they will have a surplus, and they are asking us how we mean to deal with the surplus, do we mean to give them any help to get rid of it. I think there is more danger of a surplus than a shortage, and the question of what we must do does not at present arise. I agree with Deputy Holohan that the Minister could not decide on a certain variety of seed as being suitable for the whole country. It does not apply to oats or wheat, but it does to barley. Barley is grown on land suitable for barley, and it is the same type of land wherever barley is grown. I suppose it would be true to say the grass seeds grown all over the country are the same. Possibly the only difference is that a farmer will sow a different type of grass seed according to the length of time he intends to leave the field under grass. There would not be any intention under this Bill of confining the farmers to a certain variety of seed. It is intended to prevent what is considered altogether unsuitable seed coming in.

Some farmers are impressed by advertisements of seed produced in England or some other country, and they think they ought to pay a fancy price in order to get some of the seed which has been so successful elsewhere. Very often the officers of the Department know all about it and it has been tried out and found a failure, and naturally they want to save those farmers from making the mistake of trying this particular type of seed again. I might conclude by assuring Deputy Holohan that it is not intended to go too fast with the powers we are taking here, although I do not think they are very drastic powers. At any rate, it is not intended to go too fast in the pushing of the production of such seeds as beet, turnips or mangolds and so on, that we have not produced up to the present. Deputy Dillon need not fear that. We are going to experiment on those seeds, but it is not intended to go too fast with pushing them until we are definitely satisfied that we can produce a better type of seed here than we are producing at present.

I was amazed at the Minister saying that the sale of agricultural seeds in packets represented only an infinitesimal part of the seeds sown. I should say that there are far more turnips and mangolds sold in packets than otherwise.

Dr. Ryan

That is quite true, there are more turnips and mangolds sold in packets, but I am talking of such seeds as cereals and so on.

I know that grass seeds are not sold in packets, but I do think that it is worthy of consideration to compel people who sell turnips, mangolds and such seeds, to sell them in packets if for no other reason than that when these are not in packets they are liable to get mixed.

Is it the intention to allow in free of duty seeds that we do not grow here?

Dr. Ryan

This Bill does not refer to Customs duties at all.

But is that the intention?

Dr. Ryan

Certainly. Such seeds will be allowed in free of duty.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 26th instant.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 members being present——
Top
Share