Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1961

Vol. 189 No. 9

Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Bill, 1961—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill is to give effect to certain recommendations which the Advisory Committee on the Marketing of Agricultural Produce made in their "Report on Shell Eggs and Liquid Egg". The Bill does not deal with the marketing of eggs generally, but with two limited aspects of the egg trade, namely: removing, as far as home trade is concerned, the requirement on wholesalers to mark fresh shell eggs; and providing for the registration and control of premises manufacturing egg products, such as at present applies to the premises of wholesalers and dealers in shell eggs.

Section 2 of the Bill will give power to amend the regulations governing the marketing of eggs by wholesalers, in order that wholesalers may be relieved of the statutory obligation to mark fresh eggs intended for sale on the home market. Under the 1939 Act, all eggs received at and consigned from registered wholesalers' premises must be marked with prescribed marks and the regulations prescribing the marks to be applied to eggs consigned from registered wholesalers' premises must provide for the marking of every egg so consigned. It will continue to be necessary for wholesalers to mark, with the appropriate marks, eggs which are not fresh eggs — for example: preserved eggs and second-quality eggs — and, subject to any exemptions that may be granted, fresh eggs which are consigned for export.

The Marketing Advisory Committee remarked in their Report upon the preference shown by domestic consumers for unstamped eggs, and the extent to which that preferential demand caused the home trade in eggs to be diverted into the hands of persons whose movements were such as to make it easy for them to evade inspection and control of their activities with regard to eggs. The Committee recommended that the code mark on eggs sold on the home market should be abolished, as having failed to serve its purpose. In the White Paper on the Marketing of Irish Agricultural Produce, dealing with the Advisory Committee's Reports, the Government agreed that opinion was generally in favour of this and indicated that the recommendation would be implemented.

Effect has already been given to the recommendation, so far as the code-marking of eggs by retailers is concerned, by regulations made in May, 1960, under which retailers are not obliged to code mark eggs acquired by them from producers for retail sale.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Bill provide for the registration of manufacturers' premises, under similar conditions to those applicable to the registered premises of traders in shell eggs, and for control over the conditions of manufacture and preparation of egg products. The Marketing Advisory Committee recommended that control should be exercised over the liquid egg industry so as to ensure the production of a top quality product meeting the requirements of importing countries. As indicated in the White Paper, the matter was in fact already under consideration by my Department.

Preparations consisting of whole egg or egg yolk or egg white, with or without other substances as additives or preservatives, may be put up in the form of liquids or crystals or in frozen, dried or powdered form and may be used for various purposes. Their main use is for inclusion as ingredients in foods for human consumption (in confectionery, ice cream, salad dressing, etc.), but they may also have certain industrial uses. In view of the number and variety of such preparations and the different purposes for which they may be intended, it is not practicable to define in general terms "egg products" for the purposes of the Bill. It is proposed, therefore, to specify in regulations the individual products which will constitute egg products within the meaning of the Bill.

The Bill provides for control over the manufacture, testing, grading and packing of egg products, the sampling and bacteriological examination of such products, and control over the sale of egg products found to be of an inferior quality or unsuitable for the purpose for which they are offered for sale. The absence from this Bill of any specific provision for control of the export of egg products is due to the fact that export control is already exercisable by the Minister for Agriculture under the Agricultural and Fishery Products (Regulation of Export) Act, 1947.

We have no objection to this Bill. It has one rather interesting element for me because I recollect, that when I was responsible for these matters, on more than one occasion, I raised the question as to whether this practice of stamping eggs for the domestic market should not be abolished. The interesting thing is that my recollection is that all the technical division in the Department was against this and that the consumers' organisation were against abolishing it. I personally had the view that it did no good. It set a premium on the person who avoided its provisions as people preferred to buy unstamped eggs. I think it is right that you should know this. I was inclined readily to yield my own view and yet on two separate occasions that I can recollect, having discussed this with the technical branch of the Department, I was determined to allow the existing regulation to continue. Apparently, that view is now changed.

I do not know whether the Minister's technical advisers have changed their minds or whether the Minister has decided that the Marketing Advisory Committee's views override the views of his own technical advisers, but I am bound to recall the facts as I know them and to admit that my own personal views coincide with those now expressed by the Marketing Advisory Committee which are being given effect to in this Bill. I think on the whole, the stamping of eggs for domestic sale was a well-intentioned effort, but it never really worked. I also agree that it is necessary to retain powers to provide for the stamping of eggs for export, because we have got to comply with import regulations imposed upon us by certain countries with which we trade.

To tell the truth, I thought the Minister had powers already to control the conditions of manufacture and preparation of egg products. I am rather surprised to learn he has not. Has the Minister not got powers to do this in his Bill? I thought he had and I certainly agree that if he has not, he ought to have. I take it that the Minister, in the draft regulations he has in mind, will control these matters. I should be glad, if that is so, if he gave us some indication of the scale of fees he proposes to prescribe in connection with the registration of premises.

I have a Financial Resolution that I would move here, but it was not ordered for today.

It would be well to tell us the scheme.

When the Financial Resolution comes along.

When we are dealing with the question of giving the Minister power to impose a scale of fees for certain new functions, I think it proper that the Minister should tell us what the fees are to be.

I have not discussed that matter with my Department, but in all probability it will be in line with fees charged to dealers and to other premises that are at present licensed, that is, £1.

If the Minister has not got a draft with him, I do not want to press him, but it would be well if a new scale of fees is contemplated under the regulations that he should tell us what it is now.

The intention is that it would be the same as at present, £1 per annum.

It is a nominal fee?

Acting Chairman

Has the Minister concluded?

I had no idea that the officials of my Department had any very strong views on this matter of stamping of eggs, but while it is some time since I read the report of the Advisory Committee, there seemed to be almost complete unanimity everywhere and with all their contacts during the course of their deliberations, that the stamping of eggs should be discontinued so far as the home market is concerned.

I cannot completely recall the optimistic view expressed at the time of the introduction of the proposal to stamp eggs, but I must confess that, while I had no strong view on the subject at the time, I do realise that many of those who were full of enthusiasm for that course, came around apparently to see that it had not the advantages that were claimed for it at the time.

I have explained the point raised by the Deputy as to the fee that will be charged. There is a Financial Resolution on its way which would make it possible for me to levy that fee and, as I say, while we have not had any discussions on it, the fee would be as in other cases, £1 per annum.

I take it that if this Bill passes, the weekly announcement from Radio Éireann, that the "Minister has fixed the code number for eggs for this week as 46" will cease to be a feature of our Radio entertainment.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Could I have the two Resolutions together?

I do not think the Minister can have them if they have not been ordered.

If it is agreed to take them could we not have them?

They have not been ordered. We would not have notice of them. I do not want to make difficulties. I think you had better put them down for Tuesday.

I agree.

Bill put through Committee without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Top
Share