Regarding this section, may I take it that the Minister is the person who is going to decide who shall or shall not grow seeds? For instance, if farmers want to grow beet seed, does it follow that they will not get that permission if, for instance, the Sugar Company are going to be the sole producers of beet seed in the country? I take it that the Minister will have full power and discretion, for instance, to reserve the production of beet seed to the Sugar Company, and that a group of seed merchants who may, for commercial reasons, be anxious to produce beet seed, will not be permitted to do that, and that the production will not be taken out of the hands of the Sugar Company, at any time.
Committee on Finance. - Seed Production Bill, 1955—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I think that the practical course is to reserve to the Minister the power to make regulations of every kind under the Bill. If the Deputy asks me what I contemplate doing under this section, it is very hard to envisage every conceivable contingency that might arise. I think the primary duty that would devolve on the Minister, in the making of regulations of this kind, would be to provide that two totally unsuitable types of seed propogation are not got in immediate proximity. Now we come to the question of whether you would allow any other party, for instance, to propagate sugar beet seed. If the Deputy asks me, off the cuff, my reaction, at first glance, would be to say that the existing system is a much more satisfactory one, that is, allowing the Sugar Company to continue the sole propagation of sugar beet seed. I understand that would correspond to the Deputy's own view. But suppose, hereafter, you get two or three groups of people who want to produce turnip seed.
Not turnip seed. For instance, if mangel seed or fodder beet seed were grown in close proximity, you could have cross pollination.
If you have two or three groups of people who want to grow turnip seed, I think my reaction to that would be to say: "Certainly". But suppose somebody wanted to grow mangel seeds in the immediate proximity to where sugar beet seed was being propagated, I think I would be obliged to say — I am sure I would be obliged to say: "No, you cannot do that." There are certain areas where you can grow sugar beet seed, and you cannot grow for propagation any crop in the immediate vicinity which would result in cross pollination, and the destruction of both. I do not think it would be possible for me to envisage every contingency that might arise, which would call for a regulation under this section, during the Committee Stage.
All I can say is that the proper reaction of a Minister should be to make as clear regulations as he can but, at the same time, to ensure that there will not be a reckless cross pollination of crops which are being grown for the propagation of seed. I think this is something in which one must walk warily, otherwise you might find yourself being called upon to regulate every parish in Ireland. This is a matter which will have to be studied carefully in order to see that only certain seed crops will be propagated, and that no other seed crop will be permitted in a certain area. Frankly, how these regulations would be enforced is a matter on which we shall require very careful deliberation and protracted examination by experts, before I would care to come to a firm decision. Regarding the specific question raised by the Deputy, I feel it is quite obvious that the Sugar Company should continue to be the sole propagators of sugar beet seed.
My idea in raising this question was that there is a number of farmers in many parts of the country who are growing, for instance, their own mangel seed or their own turnip seed. If mangel seed is grown in close proximity to sugar beet seed, you can have cross pollination. If, in future, some commercial firm wishes to produce turnip seed, it will mean that the farmer who, in the past, has been accustomed to producing his own turnip seed, will not be permitted to do so. This commercial firm may get the protection of the Minister, and that may prohibit the farmer from carrying on his own work, on his own farm. I mean, it is quite possible. As a matter of fact, I produce my own mangel and turnip seed, and use them. I know that several other farmers did likewise, particularly during the war. There are farmers who have continued that system, and are producing their own seeds.
I am not at all sure how the machinery of this works, but I imagine that, if an industrial enterprise for the production of seeds were envisaged, a notice would be published. For instance, if the proposal were to produce seed on a commercial basis in the vicinity of the Deputy's farm, all persons who objected to it would be entitled to be heard in order to make representations. If several substantial farmers in the area contemplated plans to produce their own seed, then I think a Minister would be entitled to say to the commercial firm: "You will have to find some other angle."
You cannot ramble in here to ask men to give up their habitual sound husbandry practice simply because you want to propagate seeds here. We have to try and fit these enterprises into areas where they will not clash with the ordinary methods of husbandry of the farmers residing in those areas. Power to make regulations of this kind always carries with it the danger that they will be unreasonably used. I can only hope to reassure the Deputy that that is not my intention.
I agree that due regard should be had to the existing rights of any farmer in any given area. The same thing applies habitually in regard to the question of a nuisance. If you live in a particular area somebody cannot come in and set up a knackers' yard beside your tennis court without answering to the person already there for any nuisance the new industry is likely to create. On the other hand, if someone wants to set up a tennis court in the heart of Birmingham, it is not reasonable to say that nobody should set up a factory near the tennis court because he has deliberately chosen an area where he should expect the ordinary instruments of industrial activity.
Question agreed to.
Sections 6 to 23, inclusive, and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.