Committee on Finance. - Agricultural Seeds Bill, 1935—Committee.
In this Act——
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Agriculture; the word "prescribed" means perscribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act;
the word "class" when used in relation to agricultural seeds or in relation to plants means a class delimited by reference to botanical classification, or to name or variety, or by any characteristic or quality, or by any other mode of classification;
the word "cleaning" includes purifying scarifying clipping, and other similar processes.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, before line 18, to insert the words: "the word `inspector' means a person appointed in writing by the Minister to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act."
Section 13 will explain the reason for this, because it is possible that a person other than an officer of the Department may be appointed as inspector; for instance, an instructor of the county committee of agriculture may be appointed as inspector. It is therefore necessary that this definition should be put in.
The Minister apprehends that somebody may be appointed by the Committee of Agriculture?
Dr. Ryan
I said that somebody other than an officer of the Department may be appointed; a county instructor is not an officer of the Minister. It is, therefore, necessary to have the word "inspector" defined, as will be seen from Section 13.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) No person shall carry on, otherwise than under and in accordance with a licence in that behalf issued to him under this Act, the business of cleaning agricultural seeds for commercial purposes.
(2) Every person who carries on any business in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds together with a further fine not exceeding twenty pounds for every day during which such offence is continued.
(3) The following transactions shall not be deemed to be the carrying on of the business of cleaning agricultural seeds within the meaning of this Act, that is to say:—
(a) the cleaning, by the owner of a threshing mill, of seeds obtained by threshing in such mill where such cleaning is done at the time of or immediately after such threshing, or
(b) the cleaning, by a farmer on his own premises, of seeds produced by him on land in his own occupation.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), lines 31 and 32, to delete the words "agricultural seeds for commercial purposes" and substitute the words "for commercial purposes agricultural seeds to which this section applies".
As the clause stands, all cleaners would require to be licensed, but this amendment will make the section applicable only to cleaners of such seeds as may be determined by Order. It is not intended, at least for some time, to have other than grass seed cleaners registered, and therefore this amendment is necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 3:—
Before sub-section (2), to insert two new sub-sections as follows:—
(2) The Minister may, whenever he so thinks fit, by order declare that this section shall apply to any particular class or classes of agricultural seeds, and may at any time by order amend or revoke any such Order.
(3) This section shall apply to every (if any) class of agricultural seeds which is for the time being declared by an Order made under the next preceding sub-section of this section to be a class of agricultural seeds to which this section applies, and references in this section and the next following section to agricultural seeds to which this section applies shall be construed accordingly.
This amendment provides the Minister with the necessary powers to make Orders declaring the classes of seed to which the section applies. It is, of course, consequential on amendment No. 2.
Just for the purpose of refreshing our memory, it is so that this section, even as amended, applies only to the cleaning of seeds for the purpose of resale?
Dr. Ryan
Yes. As a matter of fact the next amendment makes that clearer still.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (3), page 3, to add at the end of the sub-section the following word and paragraph:—
or
(c) the cleaning by a farmer on his own premises of seeds bona-fide intended to be sown by him on land in his own occupation.
This amendment makes it clear that in the case of the farmer who buys seed for his own purpose, and cleans that seed, it is not necessary that he should be registered as a cleaner.
Suppose a farmer intends to take a bag of oats to the market to sell as seed, and that by that time the Minister has made an Order under this section declaring oats to be seeds for the purpose of the section, would the farmer be prohibited from cleaning his bag of oats that he intended to sell? If the section would so operate, does the Minister think that that is a desirable arrangement?
Dr. Ryan
I do not think it would so operate, because Section 3 (a) says:
"the cleaning, by the owner of a threshing mill, of seeds obtained by threshing in such mill where such cleaning is done at the time of or immediately after such threshing."
I think that is meant to cover the farmer who cleans his own seed for sale. This new amendment is to cover the farmer who buys seed for his own use, so that the farmer is covered either way.
Matters of interpretation are extremely difficult, but I think the experience of lawyers is that where you have a sub-section clearly excluding a farmer in certain contingencies the court would assume that he is not excluded unless that contingency exists. The new paragraph (c) says that there is excluded from the section:
"the cleaning by a farmer on his own premises of seeds bona-fide intended to be sown by him on land in his own occupation.”
Take my own case. I had oats-threshed in the autumn, and it certainly was not in a fit condition to sell as seed when it came from the threshing machine. I put it by in a loft, and when the seed oats season comes around and I am going to offer that oats for seed I would ordinarily clean it if I had the apparatus wherewith to carry out that operation. It appears to me that I would be committing a breach of the law if I did it under the Bill as at present defined.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy will realise that sub-sections (a) and (b) are already there. Sub-section (a) refers to threshing, and I think sub-section (b) covers what the Deputy wants.
If the three together make it possible for the farmer to clean seed which he proposes to offer in the market as seed for another farmer, that covers my point.
The exclusion definition is only to exclude certain things from being the cleaning of agricultural seeds within the meaning of the Act, and not the cleaning of agricultural seeds for commercial purposes. Why?
Dr. Ryan
I do not quite see what the Deputy means.
What is the exclusion intended to exclude from?
Dr. Ryan
And the section refers to cleaning seeds for commercial purposes?
Dr. Ryan
Then why not say so in sub-section (3)?
Dr. Ryan
Sub-section (3) says:—
the following transactions shall not be deemed to be the carrying on of the business of cleaning agricultural seeds within the meaning of this Act.
Cleaning agricultural seeds within the meaning of the Act, but not cleaning agricultural seeds for commercial purposes. Why?
Dr. Ryan
"Within the meaning of this Act" surely covers it?
No. I do not know what is within the meaning of the Act with regard to the cleaning of seed; I do now know what is the impact of the Act on cleaning seeds for commercial purposes.
It would probably be safer to insert the words:—
"the following transactions shall not be deemed to be the carrying on of the business of cleaning agricultural seeds for commercial purposes within the meaning of the Act".
Dr. Ryan
I am afraid I would have to consult the draftsman about that.
As far as I can make out, the only insistence on the licence is in regard to the business of cleaning agricultural seeds for agricultural purposes?
Dr. Ryan
You want, therefore, to exclude certain things from that exclusion clause?
Dr. Ryan
Then why not define it in the exclusion clause the same as you have in sub-section (1) of Section 6?
Dr. Ryan
I do not want to argue a legal point with the Deputy, but I think sub-section (3) covers the matter; at least the draftsman gave it to us as covering the exceptions. However, I am quite prepared to ask the draftsman if he is sure this is watertight.
And if it is not, an amendment will be brought in on the Report Stage?
Dr. Ryan
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) The Minister may, if he so thinks proper, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, issue to any person a licence (in this Act referred to as a seed cleaning licence) to carry on in specified premises the business of cleaning agricultural seeds, or any particular classes or class of agricultural seeds, for commercial purposes, and the Minister may attach to any such licence such conditions as he shall think proper and shall specify in such licence.
(2) A seed cleaning licence shall be expressed and shall operate to authorise the person to whom it is issued to carry on, in the premises specified in such licence and under and in accordance with the terms of such licence, the business of cleaning agricultural seeds for commercial purposes.
(3) The Minister may at any time revoke a seed cleaning licence, but before so revoking any such licence, the Minister shall give not less than seven days' notice in writing of his intention so as to revoke such licence to the holder thereof and shall consider any representations made to him by such holder within such seven days.
(4) A notice in pursuance of the next preceding sub-section of this section may be served by delivering it to the holder of such licence or by sending it by post to such holder at any place at which he carries on business under such licence.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendments Nos. 5 and 6:—
5. In sub-section (1), line 51, after the word "seeds" to insert the words "to which the next preceding section applies", and after the word "of" to insert the word "such".
6. In sub-section (2), page 4, line 3, to delete the words "agricultural seeds" and after the word "purposes" to add the words "agricultural seeds to which such licence relates".
Of course these two amendments are consequential on the amendment of Section 6.
I suggest, alternatively, if you do not put in "for commercial purposes" you should drop it in No. 7.
Dr. Ryan
"Such seeds" ought to cover it if it is within the meaning of the Act, without "for commercial purposes".
Amendments agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or offer or expose for sale any agricultural seeds by retail in an envelope, carton, box, or other container which is closed by seal, gum, glue, or other similar means or in a bag (containing not more than seven pounds weight of seeds) the mouth of which is closed by being sewn, tied, or sealed, unless there is clearly marked on such container or bag (as the case may be), in close proximity to the statement thereon of the name or description of the seeds contained therein, a statement of the year in which such container or box was packed and there is also clearly marked on such container or bag the prescribed particulars of the following things or such of them as shall be prescribed, that is to say, the company, society, individual, or other trader by whom and the place at which such container was packed and the nature, variety, and place of production of the seeds contained therein.
(2) The foregoing sub-section of this section shall not apply to the sale of agricultural seeds by retail where such seeds are, at the time and for the purpose of such sale, taken from a bulk supply in the possession of the vendor and packed by him in such container or bag as is mentioned in the said sub-section.
(3) Every person who sells any agricultural seeds in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first such offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds and, in the case of a second or any subsequent such offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), line 31, to delete the word "box" and substitute the word "bag".
That was a misprint in the original draft of the Bill?
Dr. Ryan
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1), line 35, to insert the word "and" before the word "variety", and in lines 35 and 36 to delete the words "and place of production".
This is an amendment that was inserted at the request of the people in the trade who made a very strong case that it would be absolutely impossible for them to carry on the business giving the country of origin on every particular package. On hearing the case that the trade made, I thought there was not much to be gained by retaining the words "place of production". These are small packets of seeds such as onions, turnips, carrots and parsnips which, as everybody knows, are, of course, imported, and nothing is to be gained by printing on the packet the country it comes from. I think we have put in sufficient safeguards without putting in the country of origin. What we are concerned with is that the seeds are fresh as far as possible and that they have not been held over from other years. I suggest that the Dáil would agree to have this amendment accepted.
I see no serious objection to accepting it. Deputy Belton agreed with the Minister in saying that he looked forward to the time when indigenous strains of seeds would be available. I venture to suggest that there are certain types of seeds which would never be indigenous to this country, because they could not be produced here. The Minister, I understand, said they could. If the Minister were serious in that intention I suggest what could easily be done. If it is impossible for seed merchants to identify the actual country of production it should be possible for them to endorse a package with the words "home production" or "foreign production". If the Minister is serious in the suggestion that he is aiming at evolving indigenous strains for our market gardens he should take power now to see that the packages are marked "indigenous strains" or "foreign strains," or "seeds of foreign origin." That, I think, should present the seed merchants with no serious difficulty.
Dr. Ryan
Certain types of seed can be grown; types such as carrots and onions are imported. I know, on the other hand, it is felt that seeds such as cabbages and cauliflower can be produced here. The suggestion made was that they should be marked either "imported" or "homegrown." The merchants have no objection to that. But I must admit it was going to put them to a certain expense. Any little additional operation done in connection with the seeds must add to the cost of the packing and that is liable to raise the price. We do not want the price of these small packets raised. That is why we want to impose as little cost as possible on the importers.
This is an entirely new departure on the part of the Minister. This is the first time that I have heard of a Fianna Fáil Minister being concerned about raising the price of any article.
Dr. Ryan
It is a strange confession when nearly everything that the people can use is subject to a tax in some way or another that the Minister should tell us that he is not inclined to add to the cost of the merchant. The place of production of seeds is usually advertised on them. The time may come when we will be producing these seeds. The time may come when a pact may be made with the British and we will arrange to buy British seeds only. It may then be necessary to have "British production" on the packet as an advertisement.
Dr. Ryan
We will legislate for that when the time arises.
It was changed over-night when the coal-cattle pact came on.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy is raising matters that we should discuss at another time.
The present is the best time.
Dr. Ryan
If the Chair will allow it, I will discuss it now. Deputy McGilligan is talking about the cost of living and prices being raised but if the Deputy will examine the matter he will find that the cost-of-living index figure is no higher now than when he was in office.
I suggest I can reply to that. The cost of living has been tackled and the way in which it has been tackled is most depressing. The farmers' products have been brought down to below cost of production. The producer is getting a lower price and the result is that with the cost of living and other matters up the purchaser is able to purchase less.
That argument does not fit in with the cost of butter.
But the increase in the cost of butter has raised the cost of living.
The price the farmer gets has been increased.
And they are paying most of it themselves.
Is amendment No. 8 agreed to?
I think the Minister should be beholden to the Chair by bringing the discussion back to amendment No. 8. The suggestion that this would materially increase the cost of packing the seeds we have in mind—packages costing 1d. and 2d. —would not hold water. As the Minister knows there is usually a paragraph at the back of the package giving advice as to planting. Merely requiring to add the words "foreign produce" or "home production" could not possibly and anything to the printing of the notice on the package. I do not press the matter because I do not know how far the Minister's advisers are prepared to go in forecasting the production of agricultural seeds in this country. If the Minister seriously intends that there is to be a substantial production of these commodities here, then he ought to require that the seed merchant add these words to the package. If he seriously does want the production of seeds here then it does not matter whether he inserts these words or not. I am speaking from the point of view of the consumer.
Dr. Ryan
I do not think there would be very much advantage in doing it. Experiments have been carried out in the last few years with regard to the production of agricultural seeds which have not been produced here up to now. These experiments have been so far successful and I think they will prove successful. But it will be some years before we can get the best possible strains as commercial seeds.
Amendment No. 8 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 9:—
Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The following provisions shall have effect by way of qualification of the provisions of the foregoing sub-section of this section, that is to say:—
(a) if the year in which any such bag as is mentioned in the said sub-section was packed is clearly stated on a seal securing the mouth of such bag, the statement required by the said sub-section to be on such bag of the year in which such bag was packed may be in the form of a statement to the effect that such bag was packed in the year stated on such seal;
(b) different particulars and different things may be prescribed for the purposes of the said sub-section in respect of different classes (defined by reference to such matters (including the retail price) as the Minister shall think proper) of containers or of bags.
This amendment also arises out of a discussion we had with people in the trade. The practice of the trade is that certain seeds are packed in cotton bags. They suggest that there might be a metal tag attached to the bag so that the bag might be used again. I do not think there is anything to be lost. It might appear at first sight that they might change the bag or they might empty the seed out of it into a new bag. If we had not some such system as the tag we might be putting merchants to the cost of providing new bags each year. We recommend this amendment because it seems to be simple and economic.
I take it the Minister has taken the counsel of his office in this matter. I look upon this amendment with the maximum of distrust. The additional expense that would be involved in providing new bags would be trivial.
Dr. Ryan
It ought to be. Merchants ought to be able to forecast the sort of demand they will have. There is no necessity when buying cotton bags to require the manufacturer to print on the date. You can have a design which can be packed in around a certain space, on which it is intended to stamp the date. Then, when you have the bags turned out in that way, you can get a rubber stamp and stamp on the date in indelible ink which would suffice for the purpose. If you do not do that, you are going to have a date on these small bags about the size of a Saorstát Eireann sixpence attached to the neck of the bag. I do not know if the Minister knows what that would look like. It would be extremely difficult to decipher what is written on it. If you are going to incorporate into that a date, I venture to say that five out of every ten farmers would have material difficulty in deciphering what the date is. In recent legislation the Minister requires a tag to be attached to each bag stating the proportional nature of the material in the bag, and not on a tag attached to the bag which for all practicable purposes would be illegible. The figures on the metal tag would be about an eighth of an inch long and would not be legible to anybody except people in the habit of examining things of that kind. I do not want to put extra expense on any merchant preparing such matters for sale. I have a good deal of experience myself in the sale of agricultural seeds and I do not hesitate to say that the letters should be printed on the bag of a reasonable size in order that no possibility could arise that would prevent them showing to customers that they were for this year's produce and not for last year's produce. Some merchants might say they could transfer seeds out of last year's bags into this year's bags and get sale in that way. But suppose a man had 100 1-lb. bags, with no indication except the metal disc. He might sell all that seed with the exception of 25 1-lb. bags. These might be left on his hands, but most seed merchants provide that in that case you could send them back and get two-thirds of the price. Many of them might put them aside and on getting next year's seed might mix them with other bags. One or two of the customers might examine a bag and find the date 1936 on it, and other customers would walk off on the assumption that they were all getting exactly the same. On the other hand, if the bag was stamped with indelible ink in figures not less than one inch, no one would attempt under these conditions to sell a bag of seed not suitable for planting in the year of sale because there would be endorsed on it in bold figures the year in which it was sold. I urge upon the Minister to withdraw the amendment and to require that there should be stamped on each cloth bag of seed the date on which it should be sold. There will be no additional substantial cost upon the seed men and a real guarantee against possible abuse will be provided.
Dr. Ryan
I think the Deputy is thinking more of the retail seed people in the country whose loss will be admittedly small, but I am thinking of the wholesale importer who is distributing to a large number of people in the country and who may get back. a small number of unsold bags of these seeds. The wholesalers distribute to a large number of retailers and they would get back a number of bags from such persons. If he had to sacrifice these bags it would be a great loss to the wholesaler. It is stated that the date must be clearly stated.
The inscription on a coin is clearly stated but in many cases it is not clear to anybody. Under this new procedure nobody will mark the bag in future; he will say the stamp is on the seal.
Dr. Ryan
The seal with the stamp on it will be attached to the bag.
Will it not be more economical and the better practice hereafter never to put the date on the bag itself, but simply to put some slogan same as on seal?
Dr. Ryan
Therefore, that will be the practice?
Dr. Ryan
That is what it is provided for.
Dr. Ryan
It is continuing the old practice.
You are going very far away from what was originally in the Bill where there was intended to be, I take it, what Deputy Dillon has spoken of—a declaration in bold figuring on the bag of the year. We are going to depart from that altogether. It may be justified but it is certainly a big departure.
I quite recognise that the seed merchants will not be one bit grateful to me for this, but I speak with some experience of the seed trade, from the point of view of the rural retailer, and with some experience of the reaction of the average small farmer in the west of Ireland buying the seed, and I tell you that the date endorsed on the seal of the bag is no adequate safeguard against an evil which I believe to be a genuine possibility. I tell you further, with some experience of the expenses of packing, which I do not want to make too heavy for anybody, that it is not an unreasonable case to make in a matter of this kind that to put the date on a bag will involve the packer in undue expense. I say without hesitation that it ought not only to be put on the bag, but ought to be put in figures of a fixed minimum size.
Lastly, I make the point that the printed bags that are returned, if they are not suitable for containing horticultural seeds, can be turned to some other purpose by turning them inside out and selling them white for turf mould or Bulbolene, the kind of stuff used in packing bulbs. There are a number of purposes to which a seed merchant could turn these bags as plain bags and I have no hesitation whatever in saying that that ought to be insisted upon. There is no necessity for the wholesaler to bear all the loss. After all, if a retailer overbuys, he must be prepared to pay some little penalty for not having anticipated his requirements more expertly. Let the wholesaler, in the discount which he will deduct from any returned seeds, make an allowance of one half of the cost of the bags which the retailer is sending back and let them share the loss that will accrue. I urge the Minister most strongly not to accept the alternative of the date on the seal for the date in legible figures on the bag.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy realises that this applies to seeds supplied by a wholesaler to the retailer in a sealed bag. If the retailer fills a bag out of a bulk amount, this does not apply. Having that in mind, do I understand from the Deputy that he believes that the seed people would not be too thankful for this amendment?
No. I said they will not be too grateful to me for resisting the Minister's amendment. I think the seed merchants will like the amendment.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy might also help me in this matter. I understood that the wholesaler who supplied seed of this type to a retailer took back whatever was left unsold, allowing the retailer in full for what he takes back.
No. In my experience, they usually make a discount of 10 or 20 per cent., according to the man you deal with.
Dr. Ryan
That certainly makes a difference.
I am thinking of the bags of seeds that come from Suttons of Reading, "Hawlmark," Dicksons, and Fullcrop from somebody else. They are mainly mangels, turnips and English Red Clover. They are the three principal contents of these bags and, as I tell you, one merchant's custom differs from another, but, in my experience, there is a deduction of 10 to 12½ per cent. on returns made by the wholesale seed merchant. But, whether that is the case or not, I am quite prepared to stand over the position that whatever loss accrues in the matter of bags should be faced for the major purpose of securing that last year's seed will not be retailed by country merchants to small farmers.
Deputy McGilligan directs my attention to a point that did not occur to me. At present, if I return a pound of turnip seed as surplus to a wholesaler, what happens, so far as I am aware, is that he segregates all the seed he gets back at the end of the 1935 sowing season, and when the 1936 sowing season opens, he submits all that seed to a fresh test for germination, and so much of it as passes the germination test goes out in 1936 as seed suitable for sowing in 1936. If we put a proviso in this Bill whereby the date must appear on the bag, we should make it clear in the body of the statute that the date appearing on the bag is the year in which it will be permissible to sow the seed and not a statement that it is seed garnered from a crop sown in such and such a year. Suppose we insisted on a man putting "1936" on a bag, it might operate to place him under a statutory obligation to put into the bag nothing but seed which was collected in the winter of 1935. We do not mean to do that. What we mean to do is to put on him the obligation of seeing that any seed contained in that bag is suitable seed for sowing in the season 1936-1937, and, if we insist on his putting the date on the bag, we ought to make it clear that it is not 1936 crop seed he is putting into the bag, but seed suitable for sowing in 1936.
Dr. Ryan
It is the date of packing. As the Deputy says, seed grown in 1934 might be quite suitable for sowing in 1936, if it has passed the germination test. If we send an inspector to take a sample, the wholesaler cannot have the defence that he sent out that seed last year and not this year.
Suppose it is returned to him and he repacks it, if it stands the germination test, it is quite all right.
Dr. Ryan
That is all you want to get after. We want the date of packing only. However, aspects of this have been raised which I should like to consider further and I propose to withdraw the amendment.
I understood that a lot of this old seed used to be sold as tea in Belfast.
Dr. Ryan
It used to be mixed and sold as 6d., 9d. and 1/- tea to factory girls in Belfast.
Dr. Ryan
I want to mention that paragraph (b) relates to quite a different matter, although perhaps it is not apparent at first sight. It is designed to empower the Minister to exempt packets under 3d. in value from the necessity of stating the name and address. I think it is an amendment that will be necessary because the reputable firms will not permit their name and address to be given on packets sent out to small huckster shops throughout the country for the reason that they may be put aside and sold the following year. If we insist on the Bill as it is, we will have a position in which the reputable firms will be driven out of this business altogether and less reputable firms will be coming in. On that account, I think we should exempt them from the obligation to put their names on the 3d. packets.
I object strongly to this. This Bill is primarily designed to protect the consumer who buys a cheap packet of seed. It is the little fellow venturing to start a little garden, the allotment holder and the country cottage tenant; for instance, the labourer's cottage tenant who has never had a garden and whom people have been pressing to cultivate his garden and have something in it. That is the man who buys the 3d. package of seed. If he buys a package of seed that is rotten and sows it and half the crop will not come up and he will get a crop of weeds, it is ten times harder to get that person to make a venture again than it was before he ever made the endeavour. The last thing he will blame is the seed, because the worse the seed is the more beautful will be the picture on the cover of the package. Seeds that will not grow will have pictures of turnips on the package of a large size, or magnificent onions with huge green heads, or gladioli of a gargantuan size. When you open the package, you will find two or three miserable seeds of what are as likely to be thistles as anything else.
I suggest that no reputable firm need hesitate to sell seeds in a decent package if they put upon them in clear print that the seeds should be sown in 1936. If the notice is clear and easily legible the man who buys a package of seeds is often a great deal daintier in a matter of that kind than the man buying in bulk. If, next April, he sees on a package of seeds a notice that the seeds must be sown in 1935, he will say: "I will not have these seeds; I must have this year's seeds." Far from driving the reputable firm out of business, if we insist on the cheap package of seeds having a notice on it as to the year in which they should be sown, we will drive the disreputable firms out of business, and make it possible for any firm, no matter how distinguished or important it is, to engage in a trade which I think is very important.
I want to see the allotment holder, the labourer's cottage tenant, and the small tenant purchaser sowing vegetable gardens and flower gardens. I think it will be a very good thing. Far from exempting these seeds, I press on the Minister most strongly to insist that the rigour of the law should be enforced with respect to the cheap package of seeds, because no person is more easily trespassed upon or defrauded than the person who will be buying this 2d. or 3d. package.
Dr. Ryan
I shall withdraw the amendment for further consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 9, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 10a on the Order Paper is out of order.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I had the feeling that we could do something in connection with this section which would materially improve the seed situation without involving expense of a kind analogous to that which will fall on the ratepayers or taxpayers in connection with the Warble Fly Order. I detest in existing conditions proposing any reform which would involve inspection, because every time you propose inspection you let loose another flood of out of-works drawing fat salaries for doing absolutely nothing. This House knows my view on wheat and all belonging to it. However, I am one of those who believe that when you have been reluctantly forced into the adoption of a scheme by the will of the majority, the best thing you can do is to exert yourself to the best of your ability to make it as successful as you can and to avoid, as far as you can, the imminence of more serious losses.
The Minister will agree that in the years when the production of wheat was an economic business in this country, before the prairie lands of Canada became so easily accessible as they now are, two things operated to finish wheat as a regular crop in the Irish rotation: One was the inclement weather and the other was a series of attacks of black smut which culminated in the disaster of 1865 or thereabouts, when the wheat crop was struck with black smut, just as the potato crop was struck with blight in 1848 and again in 1881. From that time up to a few years ago the control of black smut was a very serious problem. Now it emerges, apparently, that in some kind of virus disease it can be effectively controlled by dressing the seed with products such as Ceresan. I would not wish to see any plague like black smut reappear widely in the country. Therefore, I should like to see as much cereal seeds as possible dressed with some similar preventive dressing. I know that leaf stripe in oats very materially reduces the yield of oats crops all over the country. One other difficulty is that a great many farmers do not recognise that disease when they see it. They put it down to frost or wire worms, which is another favourable excuse. In fact, the crops give a very much smaller yield.
Recent experiments failed to establish definitely that leaf stripe disease is a virus disease, or can be controlled by dressing it with a preparation like Ceresan. But it does appear that the incidence of the disease can be much reduced and that possibly a good effect is had by using such a preparation. Therefore, I think it would be well if a proviso could be made that no retail sale of wheat should be made to a farmer by a seed dealer unless there was included with the purchase of the wheat or oats a quantity of any approved preventive dressing such as Ceresan, or whatever dressing the Department would sanction.
It would require the seed merchant to supply with the seed a suitable preventive. It must stop there, because if you do not stop there you will have to have a thousand inspectors to see that it is used. My theory is that if you make the stuff readily available to the average farmer he will use it. These farmers who are not using preventive dressings are not using them because it is too much trouble, first of all, to ascertain accurately the proper quantity to use with any given quantities of seed and, secondly, because it is too much trouble to go into the town specially to buy it, if it is not readily available. If you make it obligatory to include sufficient of the dressing with each portion of oats or seed wheat supplied, the vast majority of the farmers will use it. Some Deputies will say that that does not cover the sale of seeds in the market. It does not and I do not think you can cover them at this stage.
The average farmer, however, who goes to buy seed wheat, oats or barley in the market is on the qui vive; he feels he has to use his own judgment in the purchase of the seeds and it is up to him to see that the seed is of the proper quality and is not liable to carry disease or weeds on to his land. If he buys it from a reputable seed dealer he says: “I am prepared to pay for these seeds and I want the best;” and when he gets the certificate of a reliable seed dealer he feels he has something on which he can depend. He will be, therefore, less likely to take precautions about seed supplied by a dealer than if he bought seeds in the markets. It is for that reason that I want the House seriously to consider the advisability of making it obligatory to have a sufficient quantity of preventive dressing supplied with seeds so that it will be brought home to the farmer's mind that, no matter how good seed may be, it is necessary to take this additional precaution. I want it done in that way so as to avoid the necessity of having inspectors going around to enforce it.
By how much will it increase the cost?
I am coming to that. I want to avoid the appearance of disease of the character of black smut in a widespread way. If the suggestion I have put forward is adopted it will go a long way towards preventing a plague of black smut. A small quantity of Ceresan will dress a comparatively large quantity of seeds and the cost will not involve more than 8d. or 1/- a barrel. The Minister will be better able to give an estimate of the cost than I. Anyhow, the cost will not be very alarming. When you are looking at the cost, do not look at the cost of the seed so much as at the cost of the crop. The extra cost for the dressing should be related to the produce of a dressed crop as opposed to the produce of an undressed crop and not to the original cost of the bag of seed to which it is going to be applied. I shall be glad if the Minister will give us his estimate of the additional cost of a preparation such as Ceresan, applied to a barrel of wheat.
Dr. Ryan
This is really a matter for education in relation to agriculture. A great deal has been done, and I think it is invariably the experience of any farmer going to a seed merchant to find that the merchant will recommend a dressing for the seed. It happened in my own case last year when I was buying seed wheat. The seed merchant said that there should be a dressing and my recollection of the cost was that it worked out at 1/- or 1/6 a barrel. It is altogether a matter for education and I do not think that it should be dealt with in legislation such as this. Certainly, I know the matter is not being lost sight of.
Perhaps the Minister does not know that with every packet of peas sold there is a pea tablet inserted? The history of that is simple. The pea packers found their trade was being destroyed because people would not cook peas properly. You should have some preparation of soda with peas and have them soaked before you cook them. The packers found they could not get people to buy a packet of this material and use it when they were cooking dried peas, with the result that now every shopkeeper who packs peas—and most of them are packed by comparatively small shopkeepers—always inserts a pea tablet. If they did not, they would lose their trade to the other merchants who did put pea tablets in. I suggest that if it is possible to do that in the hundreds of packets of peas that one merchant will sell in the 12 months, it ought to be equally possible to require the seedsmen to put in a package of preventive powder with a barrel of wheat. Unless you do that, you are going to come up against a very nasty outbreak of black smut.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
As regards Section 12, there used to be a phrase about stopping the blades of grass from growing as they grew. This section relates to the control of the growing of plants in certain cases. Is that what you are at?
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy ought to take this seriously. The Deputy is very fresh after his long absence.
The Minister would benefit by a little absence from the House, if that is the intention of this section.
Dr. Ryan
The House benefited by the Deputy's absence.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
(1) Any officer of the Minister may at all reasonable times enter any shop, store, or other premises (including a booth, stall, cart, barrow, or other place or vehicle in a market or fair) in which agricultural seeds are sold or are offered, exposed, or kept for sale, and may there search for, examine, and take samples of all or any agricultural seeds found by such officer in such premises, and may, in the case of any such agricultural seeds which are so sold or offered, exposed, or kept for sale in packets closed by seal, gum, glue, or other similar means or in bags, containing not more than 7lb. weight of seeds, the mouths of which are closed by being sewn, tied, or sealed, take any such sample by taking one or more such packets or bags unopened.
(2) Whenever an officer of the Minister proposes to take under this section in any premises a sample of agricultural seeds he shall, if so required by the person in charge of such premises, produce his authority as such officer before taking such sample.
(3) An officer of the Minister entering any premises under this section may demand of the person in charge of such premises the name and address of the person from whom any agricultural seeds found by such officer in such premises were obtained and, on such demand being so made, it shall be the duty of the said person so in charge to furnish to such officer in writing the name and address so demanded.
(4) The Minister may cause any sample of agricultural seeds taken by an officer of the Minister under this section to be tested for purity, germination, freedom from disease, and other matters, and may cause to be published, in such manner as he thinks fit, the result of such test and the names and addresses of both the person in whose premises such sample was so taken and the person from whom the agricultural seeds comprised in such sample were stated by the person in charge of such premises to have been obtained, or the name and address of one of those persons only.
(5) Every person who shall—
(a) obstruct or impede an officer of the Minister in the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this section, or
(b) fail or refuse to furnish in writing to an officer of the Minister any name or address within his knowledge or procurement which is lawfully demanded of him by such officer under this section, or so furnish on such demand a name or an address which is to his knowledge false or misleading in any material respect,
shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £10.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (1), line 24, sub-section (2), line 36, sub-section (3), line 40, sub-section (4), line 48, sub-section (5), lines 57 and 60-61, to delete the words "officer of the Minister" and substitute in every case the word "inspector"; and in sub-section (1), line 29, sub-section (2), line 39, sub-section (3), lines 43 and 45, sub-section (5), page 7, line 1, to delete the word "officer" and substitute in every case the word "inspector".
This is the amendment that I already referred to and it makes it possible to appoint as inspectors employees of the local authorities as well as officers of the Department.
Is it anticipated that many inspectors will be appointed under this Bill?
Dr. Ryan
Really, this business of inspectors is becoming a standing terror. We have already appointed a flock of inspectors. I was recently at a cinema and I saw there a scene from Surrey representing some hundreds of thousands of starlings fluttering over the countryside. The sky was darkened with them. I could not help thinking that in this country before very long it is not starlings that will darken the sky, but inspectors. We appointed a horde of inspectors under the Cattle and Sheep Act and they have now apparently nothing to do. We appointed them to ensure that the farmers would get the minimum price for their cattle and sheep.
Dr. Ryan
That was the primary purpose. Having appointed them, we then determined that there would not be any minimum price—the rule would be sauve qui peut. Hordes of inspectors went round the country, astonishingly enough not to get the minimum price for the farmers, but to extract a minimum levy from the butchers, who thereupon proceeded to extract a levy from the farmers. So the poor old farmers, having expected a visit from inspectors to ensure them a minimum price, discovered to their horror that the inspectors were proceeding to drag out of them, by indirect methods, the maximum levy they could extract. The next thing we heard was that the British Government declared the warble fly was giving them a spot of bother and our Minister for Agriculture said to Dr. Elliott: “If you imagine you can best us in this matter, you do not know what we can do.” Last Saturday, we appointed 19 inspectors to look after the warble fly in County Roscommon.
They might get the bee out of your bonnet.
I do not know how many were appointed for Cork, but I am aware that hordes of inspectors have been appointed to look after the warble fly. Why we should not have the cattle and sheep inspectors chasing the warble fly when they gave up chasing the minimum price, I cannot imagine. Now we have the warble fly inspectors chasing the cattle and sheep inspectors and the cattle and sheep inspectors in turn chasing after the warble fly inspectors. In the meantime, the warble fly will probably get away. On top of the warble fly inspectors and the cattle and sheep inspectors we are now going to appoint seed inspectors. Where is it going to end, or will a time come when there will be nobody in this country but inspectors? Do the people in this House realise that at the present time an ordinary farmer living on 12 acres of land in the West of Ireland, whose annual income amounts to about 15/- per week—that is all he has for himself—is liable to be called upon by the seeds and weeds inspector, by the veterinary inspector, by the Tuberculosis (Cattle Order) inspector, by the warble fly inspector, by the meat inspector, by the dairy inspector, by the cattle and cowsheds inspector——
There are at least ten inspectors, all discharging separate functions, entitled to call on one unfortunate farmer, and any one of those inspectors is being paid more by the farmer than the farmer himself earns in the 12 months. Is it not a marvellous country? The way this country can live off its own fat, the way one section of the community can live off another, and the way this country can eat its own tail, are a source of unending amazement to me, but I really suggest to the Minister that under this Seeds Act no inspector should be appointed, and that the existing servants either of the Department of Agriculture or of the committees of agriculture should be required to do the work. The thing is becoming a public scandal, and the personnel of the Civil Service and of the local authorities is becoming absolutely prohibitive and absurd. I press very strongly on the Minister that none of the powers conferred on him by way of appointing inspectors under this Act should be availed of, and that either the meat inspectors or the agricultural instructors should carry out whatever requires to be done under this legislation.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy took a long time to get to his point but I do not think it will be necessary to appoint any new inspector. It is necessary, as the Deputy must realise, to give somebody authority to deal with the people under this Act. Therefore, it is necessary to put it into the Act that the Minister may appoint inspectors, and so on. The present inspectors under the Department of Agriculture, who are dealing with that question of seeds in the Department, and the county instructors, will in my opinion, be sufficient. I should like to deal with some of the other points raised by the Deputy. For instance I do not think it is true that the farmer is paying the levy on his cattle. No Deputy—and especially no one holding the view, as the Deputy does, that the export price rules all prices—can possibly be of the opinion that the farmer is paying the levy, because surely the butcher must pay the export price, and if he does pay the export price how does he exact the levy from the farmer? It is obviously a fallacy for the Deputy to say that the farmer is paying the levy when he sells his cattle to the butcher. With regard to those other inspectors, the warble fly inspectors of course are under the local authorities and are, therefore, not my officers. The inspectors under the Cattle and Sheep Act are my officers, and therefore, the two must be different men.
Does the Minister seriously give it as his justification for appointing upwards of 200 warble fly inspectors and that one lot is under the local authority and the other lot is under his control? Does he seriously say that that is the reason why this double number of inspectors is charged upon the public purse, although the warble fly inspectors were appointed as a result of orders issuing from his office? The Minister for Agriculture is an innocent kind of man, and in many ways one feels sorry for him in the ridiculous positions into which he is forced. It was the Minister for Agriculture made the Order requiring the control of the warble fly?
Dr. Ryan
At the direction of the British Minister.
He offers, as justification for the fact that he did not require the cattle and sheep inspectors to chase the warble fly, the explanation that the warble fly chasing was done under the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. And because of that fact the Dublin County Council, the Roscommon County Council and every county council in the country will have to provide substantial additional sums to furnish a regular income for a collection of hoboes——
Listen to what he is calling the respectable Blue Shirts all over the country!
—— who are intended to be election agents for the Fianna Fáil Party.
The question of warble fly inspectors does not arise.
But surely the question of multiplying the number of inspectors does arise?
Yes, but the question of warble fly inspectors and who is responsible for them does not arise.
My suggestion is that we are going to have another flock of warble fly inspectors under this Act, and the Minister's justification——
The question of warble fly inspectors was raised by the Deputy. He has been replied to, and the debate cannot go on interminably on an irrelevant matter which was introduced by both the Deputy and the Minister.
I urge most strongly on the Minister for Agriculture that he should refrain from being deluded into transferring this service under the Department of Industry and Commerce in order to provide another horde of inspectors, because that excuse will not wash. The Minister transferred the warble fly inspection under the local authorities, and gives that as an excuse. Let him not transfer this service under another Department and give that as an excuse for raising the number of inspectors. Whatever duties have to be carried out under this Bill should be carried out by the existing servants of the Department, and the Minister should give an undertaking to the House that that will be done.
Dr. Ryan
Let me make one more short attempt to instruct the Deputy. I did not transfer any function. It was the function of the local authority to administer the Diseases of Cattle Act. I cannot change that without at least making an Order to that effect, which would come here before the House.
Dr. Ryan
As the law stands, at any rate, it must be administered by the local authorities, and, therefore, I did not transfer it to them; it is their business. I cannot transfer this function to anybody; it is my business. As I said already I do not think it will be necessary to appoint any additional persons for this work. Of course the Deputy was not looking for an assurance of this kind; he was making a little political speech.
How does the Minister propose to carry out this inspection?
Dr. Ryan
I stated that already too.
I do not think, Sir, that the Minister stated how it was to be carried out.
Dr. Ryan
I definitely stated that the inspectors in the Department dealing with seeds, and the county instructors, would carry it out.
Does the Minister mean then that no more inspectors will be appointed?
Dr. Ryan
You do not think there will be any more appointed?
Dr. Ryan
Very well, then; if, with the existing staff, the Minister assures this House that he is able to do this inspection, what is the natural deduction?
Dr. Ryan
That they have been getting soft money up to the present.
Dr. Ryan
Surely if you have a staff that is fully worked, you cannot ask them to do additional work. This is a fairly big job. The sampling of seed——
Dr. Ryan
I can help the Deputy if he will allow me——
Dr. Ryan
——and deal with the Deputy's "hear, hear" also. This work has been going on, and the obvious deduction is that the men who are going to be employed on it are already employed on it.
Dr. Ryan
It is an amendment to the Act, but the work of inspection has been going on.
I do not understand the Minister.
Dr. Ryan
I do not, and I do not think the Minister understands himself.
In what way is this work being done?
Dr. Ryan
The sampling of seeds has been carried on.
Dr. Ryan
Inspectors of your Department?
Dr. Ryan
Well, I do not think that the Minister on the Second Reading of this Bill informed the House that this work of inspection of seeds had been going on, and is actually going on at the present time even without this Bill.
Dr. Ryan
I thought Deputies knew that; surely they should have known it.
Then in that case why is this section here if the thing has been done already? Why is there an amendment to this section further amplifying it. The Minister knows well it is not being done and if it is being done it is like a lot of other things that are being done. The Minister knows quite well that inspection of seeds in a seed store is very different from inspection of corn in the market sold for food purposes or the inspection of any other commodities sold for immediate consumption. In testing seeds you will want purity and you will want to test for germination. Nobody can take a sample of a seed and looking at it say there is so much per cent. germination and so much per cent. purity. These can only be ascertained scientifically. When all these samples are taken I presume they will be tested. If not it is a pure waste of money taking them. It is only bluff.
Dr. Ryan
Of course they will be tested.
Will not that mean a lot of increased work and labour on the part of the inspectors?
Dr. Ryan
They will be able to do it.
Dr. Ryan
As the Minister says a certain amount of testing has been going on. I am aware of that. But I did understand that this Bill was to go much further and multiply the work one hundredfold. I think the Department of Agriculture was not satisfied that it controlled the situation. The Minister says a certain thing has been happening and will happen with a certain amount of inspection. I do not think there will be any improvement on what has been going on. My impression was that it was not satisfactory, that enough samples were not taken and that the smaller samples were not tested at all. Now this will multiply the work. If the Minister thinks he is carrying it out by a certain amount of inspection as before he is mistaken.
Dr. Ryan
I think I will be able to succeed in this. There will be a considerable amount of increased samples taken and there are other provisions besides sampling. It is quite possible with the same number of inspectors to carry on.
I would like to ask the Minister if since the Second Reading of this Bill, he has had an interview with representative seedsmen. I do not mean the smaller seedsmen but I mean the men whose business is seeds and nothing else.
Dr. Ryan
Has the Minister come to a satisfactory working arrangement with them? If he has this is part of the implementation. In my opinion that is the strongest argument in favour of it.
Dr. Ryan
I did introduce certain amendments as a result of meeting those wholesale seed merchants. One of these amendments after hearing the arguments of Deputy Dillon and others against it, I have withdrawn for further consideration.
Amendment No. 11 agreed to.
Section 13 as amended agreed to.
SECTION 14.
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.
Is this the only section under which weeds may be prescribed?
Dr. Ryan
No; this does not deal with the weeds at all.
It does; it certainly introduced a phrase. Section 8 (1) mentions
"...the prescribed percentage of the seeds of any prescribed injurious weeds."
Dr. Ryan
Oh, yes; I thought the Deputy was examining previous legislation in connection with seeds and weeds. This is seeds alone.
Dr. Ryan
It prescribes injurious weeds.
Is the power to prescribe weeds as injurious only in Section 14? The Minister takes power in Section 2 to—
"prescribe the classes of seeds which shall be agricultural seeds for the purposes of this Act."
And then in this section we have the phrase that it may be done by regulation. But when we come to the injurious weeds, the prescription is only referred to incidentally. There is no corresponding phrase in Section 2 to say that the Minister may prescribe. Has the Minister that power in any other way?
Dr. Ryan
This refers to seeds of weeds, not commercial seeds.
Yes; but I suggest that there should be a positive power in the Bill. He prescribes certain injurious weeds, but it was only done incidentally by Section 14 in which he is given power to prescribe.
Dr. Ryan
I am not clear about this. Suppose we say that we do not permit more than 1 per cent. of dock seed in turnip seed. That is the power that is given.
But look at Section 8 (1)!
Dr. Ryan
We may prescribe that turnip seed does not contain more than 1 per cent. of dock seed.
You have definitely said in Section 2 that the Minister may from time to time prescribe the classes of seeds. Nobody can deny that there is here taken power to prescribe seeds for that purpose. Under Section 8 (1)—
"it shall not be lawful for any person to sell or offer or expose for sale any agricultural seeds which contain..."
Which contain what?
"more than the prescribed percentage of seeds of any prescribed injurious weeds."
Dr. Ryan
Where is the power taken to prescribe certain weeds as injurious? It is not taken anywhere, and you must prescribe, not merely the percentage, but the percentage of injurious weeds. Where do you get the power to do that?"
Dr. Ryan
As I said, I do not presume to argue legal points with the Deputy but I think Section 8 (1) does give that power.
Oh, no. Section 14 in a very incidental way may give it. But why is it not given in a positive way in Section 2? Why not use the clear-cut phrase? Under Section 2 the Minister may do certain things. Why should not that be inserted in the Bill?
Dr. Ryan
I thought injurious seeds were prescribed under Section 8 (1).
The Minister might as well leave out Section 2 and say that Section 14 will operate in that also.
Dr. Ryan
No, we want to prescribe the seeds that this Bill applies to.
Does not the Minister prescribe certain things as injurious weeds?
Dr. Ryan
No, because the Order which is made dealing with the purity of the seeds will in itself prescribe injurious seeds. But we may make an Order for the guidance of the seed merchants alone as to what the Bill applies to.
Does it not all come down to a definition as to what is an injurious weed?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, anything that grows where it should not grow.
When sowing a turnip crop, would not cabbage seed be an injurious weed?
If you sow turnips you do not want to grow cabbage.
An injurious seed is an obnoxious seed where it is not wanted.
Prescribed as an injurious weed.
I submit if there is no particular power to prescribe an injurious weed, you should leave out the word prescribed.
Dr. Ryan
We have taken that power.
You say prescribed injurious weeds, but you have no power to prescribe them.
Dr. Ryan
Under Section 14 the Minister takes power to do this, but he has not taken power in a workmanlike way in order to make the Act a proper Act which could be understood. The power which he takes by implication under Section 14 should be specifically set out as an additional sub-section with a marginal note as to prescribed injurious weeds.
Section 14 agreed to.
Sections 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Dr. Ryan
I should like to have the Report Stage put down for to-morrow.
What about the amendments?
Dr. Ryan
I will have opinion upon them in the meantime.
The minor points can be adjusted in the Seanad. The one about printing the name on the bag is important. If the Minister can clear his mind upon that he can get the Report Stage to-morrow.
Report Stage ordered to be taken to-morrow.
