Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 1955

Vol. 150 No. 5

Financial Resolutions. - Seed Production Bill, 1955— Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Bill before us is designed to continue, in permanent and somewhat amplified form, existing emergency legislation providing for the maintenance of satisfactory standards in the production, processing and sale of agricultural seeds.

Between the development of a strain of seed by a plant breeder and its availability in commercial quantities to farmers, are many stages of reproduction and multiplication. The earliest of these can be undertaken in the Plant Breeding Station in which the strain is developed but, as the quantities increase, further reproductions must be carried out on farms. The necessity for securing that in these later multiplications the desirable characteristics of the strain will be preserved is obvious. Such objectives cannot, however, be achieved in a haphazard manner and supervision is required in relation to the various steps in reproduction, from the selection of growers, the preparation of the land and the inspection of growing crops, to the harvesting, drying and cleaning of the seed and its subsequent warehousing and sale.

Facilities for carrying out these various operations cannot readily be provided by individual growers working independently. Some measure of coordination and direction entailing the employment of trained staff and the provision of plant and equipment is, accordingly, required. Virtually all countries now engage in seed production and schemes of one or other kind are in operation to ensure that the general standards of quality of seeds are maintained at a satisfactory level and to provide that seed of special merit is marketed under recognised designation mark, seal or tag which will indicate to the buyer that the seed is of special worth. While many such schemes are voluntarily operated, there is none the less the necessity for some statutory powers to ensure that certain aspects of production will be safeguarded as, for example, prevention of cross fertilisation and protection from misuse of names or designations such as "certified."

The present Bill is in accord with this modern trend. It is concerned with two aspects of seed production. The first is the production, processing and sale of good quality commercial seeds and in this respect it is at present confined to the common root seeds, namely, kale, mangel, turnip (including swede turnip), rape, sugar beet and fodder beet. Power is, however, being taken to add other seeds to the list should the necessity arise. The second aspect of seed production with which the Bill deals is the provision of certain powers in relation to the operation of schemes for certification of seeds.

In so far as the production, processing and sale of root seeds is concerned, the Bill contains nothing in the way of new legislation, and in fact its introduction flows from the policy of replacing emergency legislation by permanent enactments.

The temporary legislation replaced is the Emergency Powers (No. 254) Order, 1943, and certain subsidiary Orders and it may be well to recall the origin of this temporary legislation.

In pre-war days, this country's normal source of supply of common root seeds was Britain. Early in the war years, exports from that country were prohibited and difficulties immediately arose in securing sufficient of these seeds for our needs. Faced with this situation, my Department invited the principal seed merchants to co-operate with it in the production of root seeds in the country. Two associations of seedsmen entered into the business and have continued in it since with a considerable measure of success. Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann went into the production of sugar beet seed and you will be familiar with the progress which the company has made in that field. It is of course open to other qualified persons or firms to engage in the business.

It is not impossible that outside sources of supply might become difficult in the future and there is, therefore, good reason for persevering with home production and making the country independent of imports as far as possible, quite apart, of course, from the economic advantages of providing seed growing farmers with a cash crop.

As I have mentioned previously, it is not sufficient merely to produce seeds but to ensure that the seeds grown are of standards of quality equal to anything available from elsewhere and in fact strains of seeds developed and propagated in the country should give more satisfactory results than imported strains produced under other conditions of soils and climate. With a view to ensuring that these proper standards will be attained provisions are included to provide that firms having licences to produce seeds will be in a position to provide proper facilities for supervising production at all stages between sowing and sale.

Another important section of the Bill prohibits the growing of certain seeds in certain areas in order that such areas may be preserved for the production of other seeds, mainly with the object of guarding against grass fertilisation. At the moment the growing of mangel and sugar mangel plants to the seeding stage is prohibited in a wide area in Munster in which Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann has been carrying on the production of sugar beet seed and this arrangement has worked satisfactorily.

Part III of the Bill contains provisions relating to the certification of seed. Certified seed is backed by State Department or other certifying authority to the effect that the growing and processing has been supervised by the certifying agency according to the conditions of the relevant scheme and that, as far as is reasonably possible, the authenticity and merit of the seed can be vouched for. The production of certified seed is well developed in various countries and in fact has been operated with very considerable success in this country since 1931 in relation to seed potatoes in which a valuable export trade exists. A similar trade might be developed in other certified seeds and to this end my Department has been operating, on a voluntary basis, schemes for the production of certified seed of wheat and of a new strain of perennial ryegrass.

It is intended to continue these schemes and to develop others on a voluntary basis but there are certain aspects of them which require some statutory authority as, for instance, the preservation from misuse of seals, tags and labels which, it is hoped, will become recognised as indicating the quality of the seed. Also, of course, provision must be made to prevent the loose application of the fundamental term "certified" to any but genuinely certified seed and it is to this end that Part III of the Bill is mainly directed. These provisions are, however, enabling and, in keeping with my general policy, I propose to employ them only should evidence of improper practices come to light which might necessitate my doing so.

I welcome this Bill because I think there is nothing more important from the agricultural point of view than pure seeds and good seeds. I believe that, as a result of the experiments that have been carried out. with beet seeds in particular, and, in the past year, with wheat seed, this country is well suited to the production of seed. Our beet yields and wheat yields have increased as a result of producing our own foundation stock of seeds.

I welcome this Bill for another reason, that is, that it indicates a change of policy on the opposite side of the House. The Minister certainly has changed his outlook regarding our ability to produce seeds. Not many years ago he told us that we were not able to produce them here and that it was ridiculous for us even to attempt to do so.

In the past. In 1948. As a matter of fact, the Minister went out of his way to prohibit the production of turnip seed, swede, by not providing a market for them and by free importation.

Nonsense.

There was free import of British seeds at the time.

I hope there will be again.

The embargo that was there was taken away with the result that I had to restore it when I came into office in 1951. However, the Bill shows a change of attitude on the part of the Minister. I welcome that change because, as I have said, we can produce our own seeds.

There are one or two points in connection with this Bill that I would like to have clarified. One is in regard to the people who may be given a licence to produce seeds. As far as wheat and beet seeds are concerned, there is no difficulty. In the case of beet you had only one company producing the seed and dealing with the produce of that seed. Similarly, in the case of wheat, you had a certain number of people engaged in production, the millers and their agents and when it came to selling the produce you were dealing with the same people again. But, in the case of root seeds, for instance, we will be up against this trouble that there are seed merchants in the country who may be very anxious to get into a particular area to produce seed, for instance, swede. Who will regulate the licences? Is it the Minister? Will he take the responsibility of saying that so-and-so will go into this area and so-and-so into another area? Will the farmer who is living in that area and who does not wish to participate in the scheme be permitted to produce his own seed?

These are points which require clarification and which can be discussed further on Committee Stage. They are points about which I am not perfectly satisfied without that clarification. I could not give the Bill the support that I would wish to give it until these points are clarified.

In the past a situation arose regarding the production of beet seed. In parts of my constituency, in Carlow and Kilkenny, beet seed and mangold seed were being produced. There is the danger of cross-pollination, cross-fertilisation. We had to discontinue one or the other. We lost the production of beet seed which was transferred to Munster. A similar situation may arise with regard, for instance, to kale and swede or turnip. If the company produce kale seed in a particular locality, I take it that cabbage or turnip or swede cannot be produced in that area. Will the Minister take the responsibility of defining the areas?

Who else can?

That is the point on which we want clarification. If a group of farmers wish to produce their own turnip or swede in a particular district and seed merchants wish to produce kale there, which party will get the Minister's support?

Whoever is there first, I suppose.

That is the point.

Is not that the only sensible thing to do?

Possibly it may be the easiest way out.

Is not it the sensible thing? If a man is already established, you would not bring in another man and put the first man out.

There was a similar situation regarding mangold seed and beet seed.

The Sugar Company came in at the time, rightly so, I admit, and the mangolds had to be left on one side and beet seed had to be produced instead, because of cross-pollination. The same thing may arise in future.

The areas must be segregated.

Otherwise, I welcome the Bill. Once these points are clarified, as they will be, I am sure, on Committee Stage, I am perfectly satisfied.

Section 17 amazed me. The Minister is making provision to bring back the inspectors. That is the one thing in the Bill that amazed me. I thought he would find some means of avoiding the use of the word "inspector". He is driving them in, not over the farmer's fences this time but through his gates and on to his land and destroying his property. I suppose these things will happen, that even Ministers may change their minds but it is good to see this change of mind, not merely on the principle of producing our own seeds but on the necessity of inspectors sometimes going in on the farmer's property.

I also would like to welcome the Bill and I am glad to see that it is welcomed, except for a few disguised barbs, on the far side of the House. I think it is a contribution, while an indirect one, to the desire of the Minister to see a contract system for most agricultural produce. In many years we had the situation developing where farmers had a glut of the commodity in one year and a dearth of that particular commodity in the following harvest. This has resulted in a rather leapfrog economy, which means that at one moment you are up and the next you are down. If this Bill is introduced it should provide a market for the production of seed and I think that many large seed firms will do their utmost to help the Minister in his desire to create the situation where the seeds for Irish farms will be grown at home and under the best conditions.

I see that brassicas and other seeds in that class are specifically mentioned by the Minister as seeds which he should include in the Bill. I am very glad that is so but I would like to see also corn seeds. The Bill, I think, is being introduced on the lines developing in similar countries because it is an accepted fact that in places like New Zealand certain areas are set aside for the production of grass seeds. Similarly you have areas in Lincolnshire and other counties in England where particular types of seed are grown such as in the case of Lincolnshire, the Lincolnshire red glow.

I would like to see corn included because I believe that within my own constituency there is an area which would be ideal for the production of pure lines. I refer to the Cooley peninsula which is completely cut off except at one side by the sea, has a mountain range running down its centre and is flanked on the other side by wonderful areas of limestone. We have 470 farmers each farming less than ten Irish acres. There we have a very high quality corn production; I would say that 20,000 barrels are produced in the Cooley peninsula each year and two-thirds of that if sold for seed because of glut is certainly fit for seed. The Cooley farmers would be willing to assist the Minister with regard to the implementation of this Bill and to operate it with him.

I would also suggest to the Minister that a certain variety of Atle wheat should be grown in Cooley and that no other spring wheat should be grown there. I am quite sure that the large seed firms would give them on contract a much greater price than the normal price attaching to that particular type of wheat. The geographical situation of the peninsula would ensure that there would be no mongrel varieties produced and we might reach a situation where instead of having the best seed Atle wheat that is sold by the merchants—I refer to an English pure line Atle—we might have a situation where the best wheat would be regarded as that which was produced in this Cooley peninsula.

Similarly we could have a variety of oats produced there which I would say for quality would be on a par with any of the varieties of oats grown in Donegal, our premier oats producing county, or in Scotland. I speak from experience because I think it is an ideal place because you have there these farmers who have nothing else to look to but some kind of quality trade. If the Minister includes corn seeds in this Bill and if he would include Cooley in the scope of the Bill as far as corn seeds are concerned he would build up a stock of pedigree corn seeds which would be invaluable to the country.

Let me refer to paragraph (g) of Section 9 which says: "any other class to which it (the Bill) is applied by Order of the Minister". The former Minister for Agriculture spoke about Section 8 under which an offence under any section of the Act might be prosecuted by the Minister. It is a very different thing for a Minister to state that in his Bill he has got the right to prosecute, if the Bill passed by the Oireachtas is not complied with, from a member of the Opposition stating he would send five fields full of inspectors to any particular farmer who had not complied with his Emergency Powers Order. I think we all know the present Minister, Deputy Dillon, is more emphatic on the point that the Irish farmer should do just what he likes and I do not think Deputy Walsh need have any worries on that score. I believe the Bill is an excellent one and will be a great contribution to Irish farming.

I accept Deputy Walsh's intervention in the spirit in which I suppose it was offered. He will agree with me that, apart from the serious observations he made in the opening stages, the latter part of his contribution was genial codology. I accept it as such. Will I be pardoned for saying, however, that I raised an eyebrow when Deputy Walsh said that he is pleased to note my conversion to the policy of breaking down the farmers' fences and bursting open their gates. It is the first time since Deputy Smith initiated that policy that I have heard a Fianna Fáil ex-Minister for Agriculture adopt it and I will dare to say that if Deputy Walsh appears to adopt it now it was never operated while he was Minister for Agriculture and I do not believe it would be operated if he were ever Minister for Agriculture again.

I thought you were adopting it.

I do not think the Deputy or I ever adopted it. I shall carefully note the representations made by Deputy Donegan. I think paragraph (g) here is designed to enable me, with the approval of Dáil Éireann, to include other types of seeds if and when the necessity for that arises but I think it is true that much of the power here sought is rendered necessary by the very reasons dwelt upon by Deputy Walsh, the danger of cross-pollination and the necessity of segregation of areas where these brassica seeds are to be grown. Deputy Walsh seems to challenge me by saying: "Who is going to do the segregation?" In the last analysis who can do it but the Minister for Agriculture? If Deputy Walsh says to me: "If you have that power and duty, by what principle are you going to operate it?" I would be very glad of his advice.

It is no question of fundamental principle to me. Naturally I would deem it my duty to dispose of each application for a licence to grow certified seeds in a given area on the basis of equity and justice but it seems to me that the general principle of equity and justice ruling in such cases would be that if a man applied for a licence to grow a particular brassica seed exclusively in a certain area I would have to take adequate steps to ascertain that nobody else was actually growing brassica seeds in that area. If on inquiry it transpired that somebody else was engaged in a genuine business of growing brassica seed in that area I would be bound to prefer the title of the person who was already there.

I think I would be bound to protect the title of the person who was already there and say to the newcomer: "There is a man growing seeds in that area that would cross-pollinate your seeds. You will have to grow elsewhere and find an area sufficiently remote from the other man's." Supposing you got one other man in the parish who was growing cabbage seed as a hobby and the rest of the parish formed a good co-operative society for the production of kale seed on a sound commercial basis and that the society said to me: "We want to get this thing going; the parish agent has training in this seed production business and we could make a good thing of it." I would have to consider carefully declaring the area one in which only kale seed could be grown and would have to notify the other person that he could not continue his hobby in that area for fear of endangering the business of the others.

You might get a general case in which two or three fellows were running a small scale seed production business and some big fellow came along to produce seeds in a big way. In that case I would be justified in saying "no" to the person who wanted to produce on a big scale. The fact that the other people were small does not give the big man the right to brush them off. They are there and they have a right to do what they have been doing if they are doing it honestly and in accordance with the best standards.

We can only assume that whoever happens to be Minister for Agriculture will take every reasonable precaution to see that equity and justice will be done and that having heard all sides he will have to give his decision subject to the overriding safeguard, which is no mean safeguard, that if the Minister for Agriculture should act irresponsibly, the matter can be raised here in the Dáil and he can be made to answer for his action by parliamentary question or by raising it on the Adjournment or, if necessary, by motion or on the Estimate; and if anything approaching grave injustice has been done it is in the power of the Parliamentary Opposition to put down a motion forcing the Government of the day to provide time to discuss the action of the Minister if the front benches of the Opposition declared that it was a matter that required investigation. I do not know any other means by which we could operate the powers provided in legislation of this kind.

If nobody thinks that such equitable operation could be workable I would welcome their advice on how best it could be worked. I welcome the contributions to this debate including the general codology and I hope it will provide the basis for success in the future. I should like to say to Deputy Walsh that I think he is mistaken, as I believe so many Fianna Fáil people are mistaken, in believing that we can do nothing in this country except on the basis that we are permitted to do it less efficiently and more expensively than any other country in the world. I have no interest in that approach at all. If I did not believe we would ultimately build up in this country a seed production business which would draw custom from the rest of the world on the ground that our seed was better than could be got anywhere——

We are on a sound foundation as regards seed production. We have it in beet and in wheat and there is no reason why we should not have it in other things.

I do not think the Deputy should hypothecate and I should like to say that it is wrong to believe that there could be no seed producing business in this country except on the basis of a protected market where the seed producers would be allowed to get the permanent right to exploit to the limit of their desire. My aim is to offer seed to our farmers and say to them: "Look here, if you do not want our seed there are thousands of people clamouring for them elsewhere." The Irish farmer must have first claim on what we produce but if he thinks he can get better elsewhere do not worry. We can sell the seeds in foreign countries and they are roaring to get them. That is what I would like to see developed in a Bill of this kind, and unless I could see the prospect of such a development I would have no interest in this type of legislation. But I do see a future in this.

As Deputy Walsh has said, we have produced seed here with which we can compete with any part of the world and which are sought after abroad. I should like to see that developed in relation to rape, kale, and all the other seeds which we contemplate growing through this Bill. I think it is a mistake to assume that unless everybody is agreed that there is to be protection for a project of this kind in perpetuity it cannot succeed. The measure of its success is how far it can expand and grow in competition with all comers and I have not the slightest doubt that in the long run we can produce seeds in this country under legislation of this kind which will command a market in any country in the world.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18th May, 1955.
Top
Share