Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 1929

Vol. 11 No. 8

Public Business. - Destructive Insects and Pests Bill, 1928—Second Stage.

Question again proposed: "That the Destructive Insects and Pests Bill, 1928, be read a second time."

This is quite a simple Bill. Its object is to prevent the arrival in this country of the insect known as the Colorado beetle, a pest that attacks potato crops. It has created considerable ravages amongst the potato crops in the United States of America for some years, has now got to France, and is practically endemic in France. France is pretty close to this country, and, while there is no sign whatever that there is any likelihood that this pest will arrive in this country, nevertheless we want to make sure that in the event of any crops being found affected with this particular virus we will be in a position to deal with the matter. Our potato trade is increasing every year and is a very important trade so far as the average farmer is concerned. Some years ago we had a big import of seed potatoes and, in fact, a considerable import of ware potatoes. We have no such imports now. We supply all our own seed. We have radically altered the position: we have quite a considerable export trade, and it is increasing every year. For that reason we consider that every precaution should be taken to enable us to deal with any threat to the purity of our supplies.

We are in a particularly lucky position. Northern Ireland has a very big potato trade, but the farmers there who grow potatoes are at a great disadvantage, in view of the fact that black scab is very widespread in that area. We have it in only two areas, one in Louth and the other in Donegal, and, moreover, we have practically no other potato disease. In view of the fact that the development of the export trade in potatoes has increased very much for the last few years, and that, generally speaking, the growing of potatoes is on the increase, we want to make quite sure that the reputation which we have at present for having pure line varieties and also varieties free from disease is put beyond any doubt whatever. We are afraid that this particular pest has become endemic in France and in other areas quite close to our coast, and that possibly it might show itself in this country, and we propose to take precautions beforehand to deal with it in the event of its arrival.

This Bill provides that, in the event of a crop being found to be affected by disease brought about by this particular pest, the crop may be destroyed and that compensation may be paid. There are other provisions in the Bill, provisions to deal with not only a crop affected, but with the crops of neighbouring farmers. It is well known that if a contagious disease of this sort attacks a crop like potatoes, crops of potatoes grown by neighbouring farmers, while they may be free, may, at the same time, contain the incipient stages of the virus. It is also provided in this Bill that in addition to the provisions which deal with compensation for crops destroyed, there is an arrangement by which neighbouring crops may be inspected and certified. That is really all that is in the Bill.

Will the Minister explain what is meant by paragraph (b) of Section 3, which provides that an inspector may charge a fee —"such fee or other charge as the Department with the consent of the Minister for Finance may prescribe"? Who is to pay the fee?

"An order made by the Department under the Principal Act as amended by the Act of 1907 may:—

(b) impose in respect of any certificate given in pursuance of such order after an inspection, such fee or other charge as the Department, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may prescribe."

For instance, it may be that crops are infected with this particular disease, and in the same neighbourhood, or, say, in the same county, farmers find that they are not getting the same sale for their potatoes in England, or in any other market they may have, by reason of the fact that the reputation of the county, the district, or the parish has suffered as a result of crops in that district being affected with the disease. They may then call upon us to inspect the crops and certify them, just as they call upon us at the present time in the case of growers of seed potatoes, to certify them where they propose to sell them in districts where mosaic or rough leaf exists. We do that at present, and where these are inspected and certified the farmers get for them very much more than the cost of the certificate, in addition to their profit when they sell them as seed potatoes. Here, if this disease should manifest itself in some crop and the farmers ask us to certify their crops as being right and free from disease, we are prepared to do it. But we think that because they will get a very much increased price by reason of the fact that we give certificates they should pay, at least, some small charge in respect of the certificates. The amount is not specified in the Bill, but the Bill will enable us to settle with the Minister for Finance a small fee, after the usual arguments with the growers or their association.

I was not here for the beginning of the Minister's explanation. Is it the case that this is directed against one disease only, or is it applicable to other diseases like black scab?

The Bill is in fact and in practice directed against one thing—the Colorado beetle.

There is a reference in this Bill to an Act of 1877. A few years ago a Bill somewhat similar to this against the Colorado beetle was passed in the British House of Commons. We have been a very long time in taking precautions against this pest. We have fortunately escaped this pest. I presume the Minister has some explanation from his experts who deal with plant diseases that there is more danger of this pest arriving in this country now than there was previously. I understand from the Minister's remarks in the Dáil that it had appeared in France and was a serious danger there. I do not know whether it has come to Great Britain yet or not.

I understand that the spraying spoken of in this Bill is not the ordinary spraying that is carried out to prevent the blighting of potatoes; it is a separate spraying altogether, and the substance used is quite a different poison from sulphate of copper. This is arsenic of lead, I think. All those poisons put on the ground have a serious effect in other respects, especially on birds. The cause of the extermination of partridges in this country was generally admitted to be the sulphate of copper used in the ordinary spraying. I do not know if this spraying mixture is of the same destructiveness. I observe in one section of the Bill as regards compensation that the Minister reserves to himself the right not to pay any compensation, because the word used is "may." Would not "shall" be better, because if a man's property is destroyed he should get compensation, whereas with the word "may" it may be a matter of doubt?

Cathaoirleach

That is a Committee point.

It is a very small matter. I am sure the Minister will see the justice of it himself.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share