Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Mar 1936

Vol. 60 No. 15

Committee on Finance. - Agricultural Seeds Bill, 1935—Report Stage.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 4, before Section 9 (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This amendment was withdrawn by me last night in order to consider the matter further and, on consideration, and after consultation with the legal people, I find that it will be impossible to alter this amendment in any way without making rather drastic alternations in the Bill. It is really a matter either of accepting the amendment as it is or rejecting it. (a) and (b) in this amendment deal with two different matters, as I explained yesterday. (a) deals with the dating on the bags or packages up to 7 lbs. weight, and it is provided in this amendment that the date may be put on a seal instead of on the bag itself. (b) however deals with a different matter. It provides that different particulars may be prescribed for different classes. In discussing this matter last night I said that the object of the amendment was to enable packers to distribute those small sealed packets without putting on their names. It does, of course, apply to other things also. Regulations might be prescribed with regard to the name of the trader, the place in which the seed is packed and the nature and variety of the seed—all those different matters as set out in Section 9 of the Bill. I think on the whole I would be inclined strongly to recommend to the House that (b) should be accepted, because it is quite possible that it may be necessary to prescribe different regulations for those small packages than will be prescribed for the larger packages containing anything from 2 to 7 lbs. Of course, even when this is passed, there will still be power in the Bill to compel packers of those small packets to put on the name. If at any time there is abuse, or if the business is not being done in a proper way, the name can be prescribed. I think that a good case can be made for allowing (b) to stand.

With regard to (a) on the other hand, the only possible argument that can be used in its favour is the economy to the wholesale seed merchants. That was mentioned here yesterday. They send out quite a number of those bags with seeds in them, and a fair number are returned by the retail seed merchants throughout the country. If the date is to be stamped on the bags the bags will be useless. On the other hand, if the date is put on the seals, the bags can be used again. I think that, for the farmers who are buying the seeds, there is sufficient protection in the fact that the date is stated on the seal. The amendment says: "Clearly stated on a seal."

I think that any farmer who is in the slightest way anxious about the date will have no great difficulty in making out the year from the seal. I would, therefore, recommend that the House should accept both (a) and (b).

Mr. Brennan

I do not think there is really any justification for the Minister feeling so delicate about putting the date on the bags. After all I am sure the Minister would not place very great value on those seed bags.

Dr. Ryan

Not unless there is a very big number of them.

Mr. Brennan

The value would be very small indeed. Even if they had to pay 1d. per lb. extra, or even 2d., or 6d. per lb. extra, it would be much better for the people who buy seeds to be sure of getting good seed rather than be compelled to sow seed that would not germinate. I do not think that the Minister ought to go so far to facilitate the trade because of those few bags that would be returned and that would then be useless. I think, after all, that the interest of the farmers and those who buy and sow seed generally is paramount. I think they ought to be protected. If we are not going seriously to protect them we should not provide a machine at all. We should either provide an effective machine or none at all. Consequently, I certainly would vigorously oppose putting the date upon a tag or label tied to the mouth of the bag. It is no safeguard, to my mind; it is just a certain type of indication which can be altered, and which has been altered to suit the requirements of the seedsmen.

With regard to (b), again I do not think the Minister has made any case for its acceptance. The same arguments hold as held yesterday, and I think they were overwhelmingly in favour of not inserting that particular amendment. There is no reason in the world why any reputable seed firm should be either afraid or ashamed to put its name on the packets, no matter how small they are. As was pointed out from these benches yesterday—and I think the Minister entirely agreed— those small packages are bought by the smaller people, by the people whom I think everybody is anxious should grow vegetables and seeds of various kinds, and who have to be educated in the growth of those particular seeds. If you endeavour to educate them to grow seeds and vegetables, and if in the beginning they once get "had" with bad seed, their education is finished. I think that when we are providing a machine at all it ought to be an efficient one. Let us see that, even if the seeds are to cost more, the people who buy them are protected. The only way that can be done is by having the date on the bag and not on a tag or a label. I do not think the Minister has made a case for the acceptance of either (a) or (b).

Mr. O'Neill

With regard to the packing of those seeds, I am afraid the Minister is not going to achieve his object merely by packing the seeds and putting the date on. Supposing I have a bag of turnip seeds or mangold seeds which have been three years in my possession, and I repack them. The very fact of putting the date on them makes them comply with the Minister's law, but is no guarantee to the farmer that the seeds are correct. Would it be possible for the Minister in any way to protect the farmer to the extent of having some definition or statement on the bag in regard to the year in which the seeds were sown? The Minister will immediately see the difficulty on this point. He wants to put the date on the seal. Suppose a farmer buys, say, a 7-lb. packet of turnip seed marked "April, 1936." I may have taken that small packet and repacked it from a large quantity of seed which had been left on my hands for a couple of years, and still I would be complying with the Minister's law. The farmer would believe it to be fresh seed, and at the same time he would be "done in the eye."

That brings me back to a point which we will have to discuss later on as to the reliability of the seed merchant. I am afraid that, although this Bill is a very laudable one and seeks to achieve a very good purpose in regard to protecting farmers in the matter of seeds, the Minister will have to go further and look for some more credibility from the seed merchants. Those licences should be issued only to creditable people, and people who have some knowledge of the seed business. The whole trouble with regard to the seed business in this country is that it has developed into a crossroads trade. Everybody selling boot laces or a penny catechism sells agricultural seeds too. That is wrong. We are developing and improving agriculture, and I think the Minister ought to see that the seed trade is retained and will be retained by the most reliable people.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to make perhaps a slightly different point from those made by the two previous speakers. I did not see this Bill until yesterday, and it may be that there are some other answers than what the Minister gave yesterday. I gathered that the Minister made reply, in the following form, to the contention which Deputy O'Neill has put up to-day.

"We are asking to have only the year of the packing of the seed put on the bag, because the seeds will be tested for germination value and other things."

There is a gap in the Minister's argument and he should fill that gap. The Minister said:

"we have power to prevent seeds that do not come up to a certain standard being packed,"

but if there is no such thing in the Bill what Deputy O'Neill says is quite correct, a man can fulfil the Act if he puts the year on the bag. He complies with the requirements. Deputy O'Neill and other Deputies seem to think that the date showing when the seed was gathered is the proper thing but I understand the Minister has said that once you controlled the date on the bag you controlled the supply of good seed. That may or may not be the case. The thing I am anxious about is this—why complicate this machinery? The Bill starts off with a clear-cut plan—every bag must have on it a variety of slogans, one being the date. That is stated in the Bill. Then we have an amendment which says that instead of the date being on the bag you can put the date on the seal on the bag and have a note added: "See seal."

I asked the Minister last night did he not think when this amendment was embodied in the Bill that the procedure would be that nobody would put the date on the bag for if you put your date on the bag you would ruin its use outside the year for which it was dated. It would be better therefore to print on the bag "See seal" or "See the date on the seal." I think this is a complicated section. First you enact that the date must be put on the bag, and then you have an amendment saying that one need not bother about putting the date on the bag. The thing seems to be peculiarly complicated. It looks very much like paying the land annuities through a tax on the cattle instead of directly if I may use an opposite illustration. I ask the Minister to make up his mind what really is the procedure to be adopted. He cannot leave it as it is—providing that the date is to be on the bag and then amending that by a clause which does not insist on putting the date on the bag.

Why not amend it simply by saying that there shall be on each bag a clearly printed reference to the seed like you have in the case of a railway ticket which says "see conditions at back?" And the conditions are generally in a Bill which is referred to on the back of the railway ticket. But we will be getting back to that kind of legislation which does not lead to giving satisfaction to the travellers. Apart from the merits of this Bill there was a matter which Deputy Dillon discussed last night in a way that I thought convinced the Minister. I want first to ask a question on a point of detail. We are told in (b) that different particulars and different things may be prescribed. I may take it that they are limited from stating particulars which are stated in Section 9 (1). The Minister cannot go outside the particulars to which he is limited in Section 9. Is that the case?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Then amendment (b) only means that amongst the particulars which may be prescribed by the last four or five lines of 9, (1) that certain things may be prescribed in respect of different classes of containers or bags. But is there any possibility that in that phrase the Minister is taking power to prescribe entirely different particulars altogether? If the latter would be the case, it is an amazingly wide enlargement of what was already before the House and would mean, Sir, under your ruling of yesterday, something in addition to the principle that was discussed under this measure and would be out of order now. The merits of (b) were discussed here last night. I came new to this last night and I may not have understood the Minister's phrase correctly. The reason he gave for the phrase struck me as peculiar. He said the difficulty was that reputable firms would not sell these small packages and put their names on them, and if we did not allow the Minister to sanction the removal of some of these particulars then, presumably, disreputable firms would apparently put their names on. If he is not going to relax, disreputable firms only would put their names on. When the Minister says that, he means, I take it, that the particulars prescribed would not be fulfilled. He is going to meet that serious difficulty by saying: "I am likely to take away the requirements with regard to all the particulars from the firms." Deputy Dillon countered the argument by saying that the man who made his purchases through the medium of these small packages should be protected as well as the larger purchasers and that there was as great a necessity in the matter of the small packages as in the large. The Minister did not do anything to counter the arguments advanced by Deputy Dillon. Apparently he was convinced that these arguments were very cogent. We should have some statement now as to how he proposes to meet the disreputable firms. I am surprised that the Minister did not insist on these particulars being printed bilingually on the bag. We should be allowed to get the labels on our seeds mixed as well as the brains of our children.

Mr. Bennett

The whole point is, apparently, to safeguard the farmers in the getting of good seed. I will admit at once that it would be very hard to devise any regulations to prevent a trader being dishonest. The dishonest man can get around most regulations. But the great majority of traders are not dishonest. The man who makes up the seed should have his name on the back of the bag. That would be the greatest safeguard that the farmer could have when buying the seed in large or small quantities, because then he would have the guarantee of a reputable seed merchant. Seed merchants are extremely keen about their reputations. If there is any substitution of their seeds by any country seller they would take jolly good care, if complaints are made to them, that they would look into the matter and have the man who acts dishonestly brought to court for his offence. We have seen cases of the kind throughout the country. There cannot be any apparent difficulty in the case of a seed merchant putting his name on small packages as well as on the larger ones. I remember some years ago there used to be a reputable firm of seed merchants in another country who were doing a very large trade in this country in 1d., 1½d. and 2d. packages of seeds. It was largely because of the reputation of that firm, the fact that their name was on the bags and that the people knew where to go if they had a grievance that that firm enjoyed a special sale for their products in this country. That is the most vital section in the Bill. It is a straight way of safeguarding the grower, if safeguards be of any use to him, to insist that the name of the wholesaler who supplies or mixes the seed should be on every package, large or small. These people are very careful of their own reputation and their anxiety to preserve their reputation will, in the end, be the greatest safeguard for the farming community.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Brennan said that even if farmers had to pay a little more on account of the bags being unusable in the second year, it would be better, on the whole, that they should do so. Deputies should realise that they will have to pay more. We all know that if a wholesale seed merchant suffers a loss he is not going to meet it himself. He will pass it on by way of an increase in the price of the seeds. I do not think that any Deputy with experience of this matter can claim that there was any abuse in that particular trade—the selling of turnip and mangold seed in sealed packets with the date on the seal at the mouth of the packet. I have never heard a complaint from any farmer as regards that particular line of trade. Where a trade has been carried on successfully and satisfactorily for many years I do not see any great necessity for changing it.

Mr. McGilligan

Did you not propose to change it at one time?

Dr. Ryan

I did but, on reconsideration, I changed my view.

Mr. McGilligan

The reconsideration was due to representations made by the trade?

Dr. Ryan

It was.

Mr. McGilligan

Did they give a figure as to the cost which would be incurred by them if the original draft of the Bill were adhered to?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. McGilligan

Has the Minister any estimates of his own of what Deputy Brennan's idea would cost if it were carried out?

Dr. Ryan

I cannot say, but obviously there would be an increased cost for the farmer.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a question of how much it would be.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know. I do not see why there should be any increase in cost where you have a trade carried on satisfactorily up to the present. Another Deputy said that no reputable firm had refused to put its name on the packets. Reputable firms have refused. The most reputable firms in Dublin are packing and sending out to hucksters' shops small packages without their names. They will refuse to put on their names because they cannot guarantee that the hucksters' shops will dispose of them in the time provided. They have refused. If they have refused, we are entitled to take it that they may refuse again.

Mr. McGilligan

Are there firms whom the Minister would not describe as reputable sending out these small packages of seed also?

Dr. Ryan

No; so far as I know.

Mr. McGilligan

The trade is confined entirely to reputable people?

Dr. Ryan

So far as I know.

Mr. McGilligan

I cannot understand why they should be afraid of the huckster getting other seed. Where would he get the other seed?

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid of their getting it; they are not afraid. These firms have a reputation to maintain. If we compel them to put their names on these packages, and if they send these small packages to hucksters over whom they have no control, they may keep the seed in a place where it will get overheated, or in a damp place, or they may keep it too long. If the seed, in these circumstances, fail, these firms do not want to suffer in reputation. They want to have control over the seeds or they will not stay in the business. If we compel them to put their names on the packages, it is likely that less reputable people will go into the business. As regards the date, what I said last night was that the date is useful in this way: if a person is brought into court for having seeds not up to standard, and if he puts forward a defence that the seeds were bought from a particular wholesaler, the date being on the packet for that particular year, the wholesaler will obviously be liable. If there is no date, the wholesaler can make the defence that he sent out the seed two or three years ago and that it remained with the trader.

Mr. McGilligan

You are in favour of giving him that defence?

Dr. Ryan

I am in favour of having the date put on all bags and packets.

Mr. Brennan

The date of growing?

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy was buying a small packet of parsnip seeds he would not, when he brought them home, put them on the hob where they might get overheated or leave them outside where they might get damp. He would keep them carefully until they were sown. The year in which the seeds are grown is a different matter. Beet seeds and mangold seeds are very often kept for two years and they are quite as good then for sowing as they were the first year. The date of packing is the important thing, because if our inspector goes into a store, takes a sample and finds that it is up to the proper germination standard, he gives a certificate for that particular lot of seed. The seed merchant has in respect of every packet of that seed sold in that particular year, if an action be taken against them, the defence that he has not been at fault.

Mr. McGilligan

Is "repacking" packing?

Dr. Ryan

No. The Deputy will read, in another part of the Bill, where the retailer comes in and takes a sample out of a box or bin and pours it into a bag. That does not come under these regulations.

Mr. McGilligan

I put the case last night of a retailer who gets a supply from a wholesaler and finds that he has some over at the end of the year, which he sends back to the wholesaler. If that seed passes a certain test, the wholesaler is allowed to put it up again?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

He can repack and he puts on, as the date of packing, the date of repacking.

Dr. Ryan

It is the date he packed in the particular year, at any rate. Deputy McGilligan raised what is more or less a drafting point when he said that he thought this amendment was prepared in a slovenly way. Why not prescribe, he asked, that the date should be on the seal of all packages. The reason is that you do not have these metal seals on other containers. On paper packages you would not have the metal seal. Therefore, the date must be put on the bag or container. It is necessary to have that distinction. The different particulars that may be prescribed relate to matters which are referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 9—the name of the firm, the place at which the seeds are packed and the nature and variety of the seeds. Apart from the point of compelling these firms to put their names on the small packages, we may have to make a distinction in other ways. In the case of mangold seeds, which are put up in fairly large packages, it may be necessary to compel the sellers to give particulars about all these matters— the name of the firm, the place where packed and the variety and nature of the seed. But when you come to the small packages you may not have room to have all these things put in. We may have to cut down the number of them but we may insist upon the name. Apart from that altogether, even if I was convinced that the name should go on, I think this amendment is necessary to give some freedom of action to those dealing with regulations and dealing with seeds generally.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister does not think that there is much abuse in the agricultural seed trade generally?

Dr. Ryan

No, not a lot.

Mr. Brennan

I am very much afraid the provisions of this Bill will not tighten up the regulations.

Dr. Ryan

I think it will. In the case of turnip and mangold seeds, I never heard of any abuse.

Amendment agreed to.

The following amendment was agreed to:—

In page 4, section 9 (2), line 52, to delete the word "foregoing" and substitute the word "first."

Mr. McGilligan

You are now amending the second sub-section, and you are only saying the first sub-section shall not apply. Do you not also mean that the second sub-section shall not apply? Is it necessary to make it as not applying to retail?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think it would apply. The second is only a qualification of the first.