I presume the Minister, in some of the amendments he has got, can amend or exercise any discretion he likes in the seed trade or as he thinks fit. There is one amendment I think that gives him that power.
Agricultural Seeds Bill, 1935. - Fourth and Final Stages.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Dr. Ryan
Not as fully as that. Deputy McGilligan raised two points last night. I was advised legally since in regard to the claim for commercial purposes that the amendment suggested was not necessary. "Agricultural seeds" is a more general term than "agricultural seeds for special purposes."
What about Section 14?
Dr. Ryan
I am assured that it is all right. It follows the usual lines of legislation of that kind. The words: "As prescribed or to be prescribed" occur through the Bill in other sections.
It gives power to prescribe by regulation, and powers are regularly taken in the Bill to prescribe. There is power to prescribe in Section 2 in regard to seeds. In Section 14 the Minister may make regulations for the purpose of prescribing any matter or thing which is referred to in the Act. But there is Section 8 which states that:
It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or offer or expose for sale any agricultural seed which contains more than the prescribed percentage of the seeds of any prescribed injurious weed.
That seems to demand a clause similar to clause 2 giving the Minister power to prescribe certain weeds as injurious weeds. If there was a second clause 2 to run in harness with that it would give the Minister power to do what he proposes to do in the way of prescribing in respect of injurious weeds. But he has nowhere taken that power. Deputy Dillon suggested that the Bill would require either an enlargement of Section 2, or a Section 3 following Section 2 saying that the Minister shall prescribe a class of weeds which shall be injurious weeds for the purposes of the Act, and which would prescribe what would be injurious weeds for the purposes of the Act. That is not there. The Minister quite correctly says Section 14 is a corollary to Section 2, but it is not in the double harness with which it should run, and there is something forgotten in Section 8 about the powers of the Minister to prescribe weeds that are injurious weeds.
The same applies to a number of plants. Section 11 says:—
Whenever the Minister is of opinion that permitting the growth of any particular class of plants in any particular area to continue to the stage of normal inflorescence would be likely to interfere with the production in that area of pure strains of agricultural seeds the Minister may by order prohibit, etc.
What particular class of plants has the Minister in mind?
Dr. Ryan
I mentioned that on Second Reading. The point raised by Deputy McGilligan would, I think, lead us much further. There are a number of things which we must prescribe, for instance, under the variety of circumstances in Section 9, and, also, the places where seeds are packed. I do not want to follow Deputy McGilligan into the legal argument, but it appears to me that I would have to add a fourth section to meet his point.
Or have no Section 2.
Dr. Ryan
Section 2 is necessary for the reason that we have to prescribe agricultural seeds and seeds to which this thing applies.
And will you not have to do that in regard to injurious seeds?
Dr. Ryan
The whole Act in every section applies, but it is only for one particular purpose that we prescribe injurious seeds amongst a particular class of seeds. For instance, I might take dock seeds as being injurious to grass seed or something of that kind, but we might not prescribe dock seed in mangels.
If the Minister casts his mind back to the Cereals Acts that were passed he will find that he took power to prescribe in different sections a variety of things, and having done that he had an omnibus clause by which he could make regulations. That applied to about five sections. The Minister says that Section 14 enables him to prescribe injurious weeds, and that ought to be sufficient. Why he puts in a clause enabling him to prescribe seeds and does not put in one enabling him to prescribe injurious weeds I do not know.
I have some experience of seeds, and I suggest that the Minister should be given this clause so that he will have power to change or amend the regulations. It is practically impossible to get a phrase that would give him complete control, because the seed business is one of the trickiest imaginable. Before the Bill is passed I suggest that a section should be inserted giving the Minister complete power.
Dr. Ryan
That would probably not meet with the wishes of the Dáil.
I think I would object to that.
Dr. Ryan
As to Deputy O'Neill's point concerning Section 11, the idea in both Sections 11 and 12 is that if we proceed to produce certain seeds, for instance beet, it might be necessary to prescribe mangel, or garden beet, or parsnips that might cross fertilise.
If the Minister is going to deal with the growing of these seeds he might remember the words of the song: "When law can stop the blades of grass from growing as they grow."
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy can grow beet.
From my experience there is a very good definition of noxious weeds. It is not defined by law, but it is in the Department's publications.
Dr. Ryan
Does the Deputy mean noxious weeds in seeds?
Take for instance, the analysis of clover seeds.
Dr. Ryan
But they vary with each class of seeds.
It would be hardly necessary to define them under this Act. I agree with Deputy Minch that the Minister should be given all the powers he requires in this respect.
Absolutely, despite Deputy McGilligan.
This business is very sadly in need of being put on a proper basis. The Minister will have to get a better class of people into the seed trade, and he will have to do that by eliminating some or by putting on a licence duty.
If we are going to abolish the Dáil do not let us do it on the question of seeds.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.