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

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

The existing legislation in regard to the egg trade is concerned with the handling of shell eggs. This Bill proposes to amend the legislation by way of relief to wholesalers in the marking of shell eggs; and also to extend the legislation, with appropriate modifications, to cover eggs that are not in shell. These two objects of the Bill are in line with recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Marketing of Agricultural Produce.

Section 2 of the Bill will give power to amend the regulations governing the marking of eggs by wholesalers, so that wholesalers may be relieved of the obligation to mark fresh eggs intended for the home market. Under the 1939 Act, all eggs handled by registered wholesalers must be marked; and the regulations prescribing the marks on eggs consigned from the 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 recommended that the code mark on eggs sold on the home market should be abolished, as having failed to serve its purpose. While the Committee agreed that the aims of the code-marking system were excellent in theory, they referred to the abuses which had arisen in connection with evasion of the code-marking requirements in the context of the preference shown by domestic consumers for unstamped eggs. In the White Paper on the Marketing of Irish Agricultural Produce, dealing with the Advisory Committee's Reports, the Government agreed that opinion generally was in favour of the abolition of code-marking 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 give effect to the Marketing Advisory Committee's recommendation 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, this matter was already under consideration by my Department. Provision is made in the Bill for the registration of manufacturers' premises, under conditions similar to those applicable to the registered premises of traders in shell eggs, and for control over the manufacture, testing, grading and packing of egg products. Provision is also made for sampling and bacteriological examination of such products and for 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.

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. Having regard to the number and variety of such preparations and the different purposes for which they may be intended, the individual egg products within the meaning of the Bill will have to be specified in regulations.

In view of the control exercisable under the Agricultural and Fishery Products (Regulation of Export) Act, 1947, control over the actual export of egg products is not necessary in the present Bill.

Mr. Donegan

This Bill is parallel to other Bills in relation to agricultural marketing that have come before us in the past six months. They stem from anxiety in relation to agricultural marketing and agricultural credit. With the appearance of the recommendations of various advisory committees, the Government put through various legislative measures.

The present legislation merely regularises the wholesaling of eggs. It makes certain minor changes, extends existing legislation in many ways and abolishes the code mark on home-produced eggs for sale on the home market. I think the recommendations of the Committee were correct. They also advised that the code mark for eggs on the British market should be the same as the code mark used in Britain.

If we are to export most of our eggs to Britain, I feel that was a proper recommendation. You might call it copying our ancient enemy. You might have ideas about that, but, when it comes down to commercial points, is it not better always to simplify matters? If the code mark on Irish eggs in Britain were to have the same meaning and significance as the code mark on British-produced eggs, then presumably our eggs could mingle with the British product and could be treated similarly and therefore might be more attractive to the wholesalers in that country.

This legislation falls far short of what was suggested by the Advisory Committee on the Marketing of Agricultural Produce. On page 177 of its report, the Advisory Committee recommended that producers should be guaranteed a minimum price for their eggs. I am fully aware of the difficulties in this regard.

Because of the subsidy system in Britain whereby they pay an economic price to their producers and at the same time reduce the price of their eggs to consumers, we must compete against the reduced price to consumers. That would be quite difficult and expensive to do here.

As I understand the position, our exports of eggs have fallen from their true potential to a shadow of their former glory. Having gone through their long and tedious work, the Committee made this recommendation. They worked extremely hard. I know a few of the members and they told me of their activities. If you look at Appendix I on page 19, you will find a list of organisations and individuals who were contacted and with whom this problem was discussed. It is an extremely lengthy list and an extremely large amount of work was done.

The Government have refused to accept the recommendation. There are two ways of looking at it. One is that the Government are not interested in the production of more eggs and in their export. The other is that the Government have looked at that avenue of agricultural effort and have decided that, for the money to be spent, there is not the opportunity there for a continuing profit and presumably, in the future, a cessation of subsidy. I feel that that perhaps guided the Government. This legislation will not do very much for the egg industry. Prices vary so much and are for most of the year so low that there is no incentive to keep hens for egg production.

The Committee recommended the establishment of an egg marketing board on which egg producers, wholesalers, manufacturers of liquid egg, retailers and industrial users would be represented—recommendation No. 10. The Government say in this Bill that they are not as interested in this field of endeavour as they were perhaps in the Pigs and Bacon Bill, in the Dairy Produce Bill and in other marketing Bills in the past six months because they do not really form a board which would operate for the advancement of egg marketing.

We welcome the Bill, as far as it goes, but I see the difficulties facing the Government. I think that perhaps they should have gone a little further but I can understand the difficulty of producing a minimum price. I could be highly critical. I could say that the Government should have produced this subsidy. I honestly feel that, with the extraordinary subsidy in Britain and the grave disparity between the price the farmer there gets for his eggs and the price the housewife pays for them, with which price we must compete, we would be unwise to make definite and costly efforts at this stage. I think that in abolishing the code mark for the home market, the Minister has done right; but in not following the recommendation of the Committee that the export mark should be the same as the British mark, I do not think he has done the proper thing.

By and large, eggs are, unfortunately, an agricultural backwater at present; and I suppose we must be thankful for the small advances in this Bill. But I think the Bill will be a disappointment for the Advisory Committee. They made definite and sweeping recommendations which have not been followed. I hope the Bill will advance the production and marketing of eggs.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I was very surprised when I read of the intention under this new Bill to remove the necessity for the marking of fresh eggs. I remember the previous amending Bill brought in by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dillon, which was for the purpose of making it no longer necessary to mark or to date the cartons of eggs being exported. I contested very strongly in the House against the removal of this obligation. The then Minister told us it was in order to suit the requirements of the importers of our eggs—that they found it awkward if the date was visible. In other words, as I then put it, what we were doing was to make it easier for the buyers abroad of Irish eggs to swindle their customers into a false notion about the freshness or otherwise of our eggs.

Under the main section of this Bill, we are making it more difficult for the Irish public to tell a fresh egg from a bad egg on sight. The code marking of eggs has worked out very well. The public have become used to it. It was generally recognised that the code-marked egg was a guarantee of freshness, and if the freshness was not there, one had some redress. I feel that, with the abolition of the necessity to code-mark eggs, will go any possibility of the customers having the right to protest, because they will be buying unmarked eggs as from now.

The Minister told us, and I noted his words, that this Bill is for the relief of wholesalers. The wholesalers, for some reason the Minister did not explain, find it a bit of a nuisance to code-mark eggs——

Mr. Smith

The retailers are already relieved of the necessity.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I accept the Minister's addition to that, but I am afraid my concern is primarily for the consumer of the eggs. I am afraid a certain amount of trouble on the part of the retailer and on the part of the wholesaler is the price they have to pay to remain in business. I do not think it should be made too easy for them to put less than fresh eggs on the market without its becoming immediately apparent. I did not hear the Minister make any other case for the removal of this obligation, except that it would make things easier for the wholesaler. I should like to hear him if he would mention some reason which would make it better for the consumer. I foresee the fact that we shall get a larger proportion of rotten eggs in the shops. That may be considered by some as a good thing coming up to election time. But it is surely a seasonal demand. I feel that for permanent legislation to deal with what is merely a seasonal demand is a mistake.

The Minister did say that there were cases of evasion. He did not amplify that. I find it hard to deal with cases of evasion by changing the law and making it no longer necessary to evade it. It is almost like saying that if you are evading the licensing laws and producing poteen, the way to deal with it is to make it legitimate to produce poteen. If you are evading the law which says you must mark fresh eggs as fresh, it seems to me that the way to deal with that is not to say: "All right; we will remove the obligation upon you to mark fresh eggs as fresh."

I feel that this important section of the Bill, Section 2, which gives this so-called relief to wholesalers, is against the public interest and the interest of the consuming public. It is making it easier to deceive the public. In the memorandum attached to this Bill, the comment is made about the Agricultural Produce Act, 1955, which I mentioned before, that it was brought in "to enable the Minister to grant exemptions to the egg exporters from the requirements of the Principal Act regarding the marketing of eggs where the eggs are intended for export to countries in which unmarked eggs are more acceptable to the market." Now the Minister is asking us, having done that for the foreign buyers of Irish eggs, to agree that unlicensed eggs are more acceptable to the Irish market. I am prepared to believe him if he tells me they are more acceptable to the retailer because they are rather a nuisance to him and if he tells me they are more acceptable to the wholesaler because they are rather a nuisance to him, but I am not prepared to believe him if he tells me that an unmarked egg is more acceptable to the customer. I feel that by failing even to mention the customer, the Minister has failed in his duty to a very important section of the community. I should like to ask him therefore what redress the customer has in future if he buys an egg that turns out to be a rotten one from the retailer.

Mr. Ryan

I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington is quite right in looking at this from the consumer's point of view, but I think the conclusions he has arrived at are wrong. The consumer is in a much better position in not having the eggs marked because the practical approach to this is that if a housewife gets a bad egg, she goes back to the shopkeeper and tells him that the eggs she bought from him were bad. If he values her custom, he will replace the eggs. But if he is selling marked eggs, he has the defence of saying: "I bought these eggs because the proper marking is on them. I cannot be responsible if I bought eggs from the wholesaler with the proper marking on them and they do not turn out to be all right." If there is no marking on the eggs, he has nothing to fall back on except that he bought these eggs and thought they were all right. He has to take the word of the housewife that they are not all right, and in 99 cases out of 100, he will replace the eggs. Consequently, I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington's concern for the consumer in this instance is misplaced.

Mr. Cole

I support what Senator Sheehy Skeffington says. I feel that doing away with the code-marking of eggs in present circumstances is a backward step. We decided some years ago when this was introduced that the code-marking of eggs would be an advance and that by enforcing that regulation, we would be able to put on the market fresh eggs of first-class quality. In present marketing conditions here and elsewhere, we should concentrate on quality. That is something we can achieve here and on the British market because of our close proximity to it.

I was rather sorry to see in the Advisory Committee's report that they recommended the abolition of the code mark on the home market, because, as they say in paragraph 29:

The present regulations in regard to the code marking of eggs for the home market are not being observed and in our opinion they cannot be effectively enforced.

I think the answer is that we should take whatever powers, or make whatever regulations are necessary to enforce them, and see that they are observed. That should have been the answer in this Bill and not to abolish the code-marking of eggs which leaves the way open to a great many abuses, as Senator Sheehy Skeffington has said. We hear of the very stringent regulations laid down elsewhere—in Northern Ireland, for instance—to ensure that eggs reach the customers in as short a time as possible, and as fresh and as wholesome as possible.

Some time ago, there was a controversy in Northern Ireland about the washing of eggs. If it was found that they were washed, they were not rejected absolutely, but they were put in a lower category. They would not even allow the eggs to be washed. The abolition of the code marking is a backward step, as I have said. It would have been better to ensure that the regulations were stringently enforced and, if necessary, there should be more power to enforce them.

I feel that all eggs, whether on the premises of a wholesaler or a retailer, should be marked with a certain date or number which was changed frequently. That would ensure that fresh eggs would certainly get to the customer with the least possible delay, and I think that is what the customer wants. I am a countryman and I have a great regard for a fresh egg. Even in the city of Dublin, an egg does not appeal to me, and I would avoid it usually, simply because of that extra week's or fortnight's delay. Our aim should be for the producer to put on the market a quality egg, which is a fresh egg.

Mr. Smith

I cannot remember, and I have not read the discussions which took place during the debate on the 1939 Act in the Dáil, the Act which introduced the code marking system, but I do remember that it was originally intended that the code mark should apply only to eggs for export. Its extension to the home market was a result of the impracticability of segregating eggs for export and home consumption, with the result that the code marking system was applied to eggs for all purposes. As I say, that was not the original intention, and it was done only because of practical difficulties.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The benefit was given to the Irish public reluctantly only.

Mr. Smith

The benefit was given to the Irish public for the reason that, in the judgment of those responsible for the preparation of the Bill and advising the draftsman, it was thought a necessary, wise or proper course. I am not prepared at this stage to debate the wisdom or otherwise of that recommendation. That is my recollection of the background to the code marking of eggs in the 1939 Act. At that time we had a considerable market for the export of eggs. As Senator Donegan has said, that has all changed, for the reasons to which he briefly referred. I suppose it is not necessary for me to go into them now, but let me say that so far as the home sales are concerned, speaking for myself, my own taste is like Senator Cole's, and I feel it would represent the taste of most people. I would take an egg that was not absolutely fresh, but I would not like the sight of the code mark on an egg. I have not recently read the report of the Advisory Committee but they had intimate contact with the whole trade and they met people of all classes engaged in the trade, and I have not the slightest doubt that in making the recommendation that code marking should be abolished so far as home sales were concerned, they were, in fact, interpreting the feelings of the great majority of the people——

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

In the trade.

Mr. Smith

No, the consumers. I do not blame the Senator because perhaps I did not read my speech distinctly when I referred to this matter. I said:

In the White Paper on the Marketing of Irish Agricultural Produce, dealing with the Advisory Committee's Reports, the Government agreed that opinion generally was in favour of the abolition of code-marking and indicated that the recommendation would be implemented.

That is my opinion and it was also accepted by the Government. I believe, as I said already, that my opinion can be regarded as representative of the public taste with regard to code-marking of eggs.

Look at the disadvantages. The Senator also asked me why we were so concerned because of inconvenience to the wholesaler. This is a small country and our biggest centres of population are capable of being fairly well tapped for trade by all kinds of small traders and others. They come to a city like Dublin, make business contacts and say: "I will supply you with fresh eggs", with the result that hotels and restaurants of all kinds place orders with them, and they are able to seize the market for themselves to the detriment of those who are obliged by law to code-mark the eggs and thereby lose their trade.

There are other reasons which would justify that step: first, the recommendations of the advisory body and secondly, the decision of the Government to accept that recommendation. Senator Donegan mentioned the other recommendations made by the Committee. Now, it is all right to talk about setting up boards. It is all right to talk about determining the minimum price from time to time. It is even all right to call upon the taxpayer, as we have often done, to provide money in order to subsidise agricultural produce of one kind or another. Governments do not like having to do that, but it is done, and it is done with considerable justification in many cases. There is, however, one essential that one must have before one starts. One must have a market. For years, we have been trying to hold on to the egg trade because the egg trade was tremendously important to us. It was tremendously important all over the countryside. In the old days, when we were young, egg production meant a great deal to the small holder. As far as I am concerned, there is no other industry to which I would lend a hand with such enthuasism as Minister for Agriculture if I could see the way to do that effectively, and even if it were to cost the taxpayer money.

It is not enough simply to say we will set up a board. It is not enough simply to say we will provide minimum prices. There is a wider field. Because of the disappearance of the market, we could not find an outlet for eggs produced surplus to our own requirements. For that reason the recommendation made by the Advisory Committee was not approved. Wisdom could not justify its approval.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to ask the Minister one question. He will remember that in the Principal Act, a fresh egg is defined. What warranty goes with an egg purchased in future, unmarked? Is there a warranty that there will be a degree of freshness about it? Does it carry any warranty at all?

Mr. Smith

We have our system of inspection. We have our system of checking up on collectors, retailers and so on. As far as I can see, it is like a great many other things. We do business with those whom we know. I referred to the trader who comes up here to Dublin and makes contact with perhaps ten, 12 or 15 hotels or restaurants. He knows he will not keep these contacts unless he provides that which he promised to provide. When he goes down the country he has to be selective there. He has to be sure of the people from whom he buys eggs. A kind of trade relationship is established. If one cannot rely on that, I really cannot see how one can provide any guarantees. If I am a producer, I have someone to whom I dispose of my produce. He purchases from me because he takes my word as to the condition of my produce. He sells it to someone who takes his word. These are the processes as between producer and consumer. I do not know of any other way in which one could provide guarantees as to the quality of the produce one is selling or purchasing.

I do not want to run down the code-marking of eggs. I have admitted I do not like it personally. A code mark would never convince me. Some countries wanted code-marked eggs; some countries did not want them code-marked. The reason we make provision to enable eggs to be exported without a code mark is that, if it should happen that we export in the future to a country which does not want a code mark, we want to be in a position to have the legal power to say to the exporter that he need not code-mark the particular consignment.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next Stage?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

All Stages next sitting day.

Mr. Smith

One never knows the source from which opposition will derive.

Mr. Carton

The Minister is learning every day.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th June, 1961.

The Seanad adjourned at 6 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th June, 1961.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Jun 1961