Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Jun 1924

Vol. 7 No. 23

DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (EGGS) BILL, 1924.—THIRD STAGE.

This Act may be cited as the Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Act, 1924, and shall come into operation on such day, not later than the 1st day of August, 1925, as the Minister shall by order appoint.

I move:—

"To delete in line 16 the words and figures ‘1st day of August, 1925,' and substitute therefor the words and figures ‘1st day of January, 1925.'"

When you look at the Third Interim Report of the Commission on Agriculture and see that it is dated the 22nd of May, 1923—more than twelve months ago—and that the Report advised that such a Bill as this should be introduced, one begins to wonder why we should wait until the 1st of August, 1925, for this Bill to become operative.

Now that is more than two years from the date on which this Report was furnished to the Ministry of Agriculture. On the Second Reading I regretted that this Bill was not introduced earlier. But certainly, if the Bill is to stand over and not become law until the 1st August, 1925, and when we see in addition that two months after that is to be given for compliance with the regulations contained in the Bill, we begin to wonder how long it will be before the effects of this measure will become operative at all. The real purpose of the Bill is to raise the standard of our produce and to win us back a good name for our produce. Now, that will not come to us on the 1st day of August, 1925, or in two months after August, 1925. It will only come to us when we shall have put our produce on the market for a certain period consistently up to a certain standard. That is the only way that we shall be able to win back our good name. It seems to me that it is too long to wait until the end of 1925. We are half way through 1924 now. I know the Minister will argue that the trade is so badly organised that it would be unfair and unjust to the trade—perhaps he will say that it should be impossible for the trade to be ready by January or March to meet the situation that the law would have created. I suggest to the Minister that if you gave these people five years they would wait for four years and ten months, and I suggest that they would be just as well prepared by the 1st January, 1925, to meet the situation that will be created by what will then be an Act, as they would be by the 1st day of August. When you take into account that this Report was furnished in May, 1923, and that you wait almost three years before this Bill becomes law, and when you consider the other reports of the Agricultural Commission, you do not know when you shall see them put into operation. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it is right that this amendment should be accepted.

I support the amendment. The section says that the Act shall come into operation on such day not later than the 1st day of August, 1925, as the Minister shall by order appoint. I have no doubt that it would do something to meet Deputy Baxter if the Minister could give us an assurance that though the Bill says the 1st August, 1925, he really means to appoint some date very much earlier than that. One would like to see the Bill actually operating in time to take advantage of next spring traffic in eggs, but if, as the Deputy has suggested, the operation of the Bill is to be postponed until after the next spring trade, it practically will be of very little value until 1926. Now, the trade has had a fairly considerable warning. They were very well aware more than one year ago of what was reported by the Agricultural Commission, and they have known what was in the minds of people in the Northern-portion of this country. The matter of the grading and licensing and exporting of eggs has been in the air for at least a year, and the trade has had quite sufficient warnings, and I have not had the slightest doubt that they have been preparing for the operation of some scheme of checking and licensing and grading. And on that account I think it would be a pity to let it go forth that the date will be postponed as late as the 1st August. I should like a very much earlier date to be put in, although I can see possible reasons for objection to the 1st of January, inasmuch as we are in June now, and if we say not later than the 1st January it may not give sufficient time. But if the Minister would agree to an earlier date than August, to a date, say, between January and August, and if he would give an assurance that it is the intention of his Ministry to make an order notifying a date which will be in time for next spring export trade that will probably satisfy Deputy Baxter and meet the requirements of the case.

Mr. HOGAN

I agree with both the Deputies as to the necessity of bringing this Bill into practical effect at the earliest possible date, and it will be the aim of the Department to bring this Bill into effect on the earliest date possible, having regard to the state of the trade and having regard to the fact that the trade must get a fair time to comply with the necessary conditions. I would point out that what is really important is to have the Bill in operation by August. It is not so important to have it in operation for the first four months of the year. There is a big supply of eggs at that time, that is a reason why the eggs are fresh and they are sold immediately. Later on in the months of August, September, October, November and December prices are fluctuating, and it is when you have a small supply of eggs that all the weaknesses in the trade begin to show themselves. So that the fact is, if you were to pick out a date the important date before which the Bill must be in operation is the autumn.

Now, this Bill may be a year too late, may be two, three, four or five years too late. But that does not alter the point. There is no use in saying that if the trade got five years they would not begin to prepare for four years and ten months. The question is: Is the period of two months sufficient, the two months which Deputy Baxter says they would be preparing? The fact is that I am advised by the experts in this matter, and by everybody else whom I had consulted, that it will take very nearly the time that we propose with the best will in the world to enable the trade to adapt themselves to the rather stringent regulations and exacting requirements of this Bill.

Do you not mean twelve months?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes. In the North they know a great deal about the egg trade. The egg trade is very important to the North and a year is the term in the Northern Bill, but they extended it to a year and a half. That period was believed necessary. I could not promise that the trade would be in a position in a shorter time than I have mentioned to comply with the requirements of this Bill, or that it would be fair to ask them. That is the position I am in, that is the advice I have got, and that is what I believe, having regard to my investigations into the question and to my consultation not only with my officials, but with the trade itself. In fact the trade want a longer period, but that is the period we have inserted. This Bill will come into operation from the day it is passed in reality. If I am right in saying that it will take the trade all the time to prepare, it will be our duty to see that they are preparing, that they are putting in the proper equipment, and taking the steps to give the necessary instruction. It will be our duty to help them to train the people who pack their eggs and to show them how to grade. All that will day by day improve the quality of the Irish eggs in the English market. This Bill will be in operation from the day it passes; and strictly speaking, it is not correct to say that its effects will not be felt until October, 1925. It will be in operation from the day it passes. I would suggest to the Deputies that they would not press me to insert the amendment of Deputy Baxter. We have here, as Deputy Johnson has pointed out, "not later than the first day of August, 1925." All I can say is that in view of the advice I have got, I could not shorten that period. I repeat that it will be the aim of the Department of Agriculture to see that the trade will set about preparing for the operation of this Bill immediately, and as quickly as possible, and that if the sequence of events shows that the Bill can be brought into operation at an earlier date, it is open to us to do so.

Do I understand from the Minister that the Bill will come into operation from the day it passes and that penalties will be enforced?

Mr. HOGAN

No, you do not.

I would like to say that in my view the argument which the Minister has used regarding next year's trade re-inforces my view that the important consideration should be to take advantage of next spring. We all know as a matter of fact that it is not in spring time that eggs are risky, but if you start off during that period of three months, when nothing but fresh eggs are going across the water and when people are inclined to send them as quickly as possible for fear of falling prices, that is the time to get a reputation, and if you can associate in the mind of the trade in England that eggs coming from Ireland graded and with certain brands on the packet are fresh, as they will be at that time, they will know that the grading and packing are a sort of guarantee of future freshness. There will then be no fear that in June, July, August or September they will be coming on to stale eggs. You will have made a reputation and given the confidence that is required during the time that fresh eggs are going forward. I suggest that that is the time to get the provisions of the Bill into practical working. I remind the Minister that it is very largely in his own hands as to whether the trade is going to be obliged to bring into operation methods that are beyond their capacity within the time. He will be issuing regulations. These regulations may be less stringent as, say, from the 1st January, to the 1st August. They may become more stringent after the date that is required, but if you get the Act operating in the earlier part of the year you will reap the advantage in the later part of the year, and not wait for another six months.

There is a good deal in what Deputy Johnson says. I am glad that he knows something about the life of a hen, but in the early spring there is very little necessity for this. About March and April, however, circumstances happen in the life of a hen that will rather lead to stale and unpalatable eggs. I think if the Minister made the time earlier than August, say, May, that would be a time when this class of undesirable commodity comes on the market, and that would be a step in the right direction. It is scarcely needed before that, but it is very much needed afterwards.

The point of view I had in mind in this amendment is, I must say, that the weightier portion of the trade would have passed over before this Bill would be law. I feel that that would be regrettable. I feel that if we send out an article that will be up to a certain standard at a time when we are putting heavy quantities of that article on the market, it will do much to establish our reputation, because it will be consumed in thousands and thousands of households. And later on, when the supply is much less, it will take a longer time for the article to reach as many consumers. It will consequently take these people longer to find out the class of article we are sending out. That is why I think we should get at this matter as early as possible in the season. I admit that there are difficulties in this question. It is true that the regulations may be framed in such a way as to make it possible that the standard would be certainly improved before the 1st August. I recognise that there is some force in the Minister's statement that although the Bill is not really law and operating as such, the fact that preparations are being made, will in itself be raising the standard, but what I would like to get is to have the standard raised all over the country in the earlier part of the season. The Minister does not seem to hold out hope that he could do that earlier than August. I very much regret that.

I wonder who the experts are whom the Minister has consulted, and whether they can be depended upon absolutely in regard to this matter. I am in sympathy with what Deputy Baxter says, because I think that the earlier the date upon which we can get this into operation, the better it will be for all concerned. I believe that the technical difficulties which are to be faced would be overcome in time to get the Bill working at an earlier date than the 1st August. In actual practice the fixing of this date of the 1st of August will mean that this grading of eggs will not be effective until early in 1926. The amount of graded eggs shipped after the 1st of August will not be very great, and before the Bill takes real practical effect we will have to wait for two years. Possibly, the Minister could take steps to get these people stirred up, as it seems a long time to give until August, 1925, to teach them how to pack and grade their eggs and get the necessary buildings erected.

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy ought to know, because the people really affected are the producers, the wholesalers, the exporters and the retailers, and if the Farmers' Party, as a whole, thinks that this drastic Bill, with its drastic regulations, affecting every aspect of the trade, necessitating the putting in of new equipment, new plant, and the adoption of different methods of packing and grading, can be put into operation in six months, I am surprised after the information I have got from people who are in touch with the question.

All I can say is, the whole question is whether the month of August, that is to say, practically a year from now, is necessary or not. May is suggested, but there is no use suggesting a month in a casual way. It may be after investigation that Deputies have satisfied themselves that this Bill could be put into operation in May, but I ask them not to be just guessing at the month. Remember this Bill is regulating a very big trade, and trade is the easiest thing in the world to upset by regulation. We might be very anxious to improve the egg trade, but we would not be improving it by rushing in at short notice with an ill-considered Bill and ill-considered regulations and not remembering the result of possible reactions on a very delicate organism, namely, this trade of £5,000,000 a year. The Dáil will be here, I hope, next August, and during the intervening period. It is open to us, if we are ready, to put the Bill into operation by January; we have the power. There are a great many ways of raising the question and finding out what progress had been made. Deputy Johnson and Deputy Baxter and Deputy Heffernan, when we are discussing the regulations, will be in a position to know whether it is possible to bring the Bill into operation this month or next month, and they can see to it that there will be no unnecessary delay. On the other hand, if you put in the 1st May or 1st of January into the Bill, then it means another Bill if you are to alter the date. This was discussed at great length in another place, and I am not depending entirely on officials in this matter. I have consulted the big producer, and the merchant, and every possible person. Most of them would like a lot of time. Some say two years. I have come to the conclusion that with the hardest possible work it will not be possible to bring the Bill into operation before August next year. That is my belief. I ask Deputies who have not given sufficient reason for thinking otherwise not to force us at this stage to commit ourselves to a definite month. The Department of Agriculture and others will have to co-operate to teach people to pack eggs, as well as teaching them not to keep bad straw. All that will improve the trade. I know a big quantity of eggs goes out in the spring months, but in the spring months there is nothing to complain about in regard to our eggs in England. There is no such complaint as there is in the autumn months. During the spring we will be preparing our regulations, and exporters will be preparing their equipment, and all will be ready to be put into operation, and, more important still, they will be in the position to get the regulations, and they will be in a position by then to mark their packages and their eggs, and to see that the eggs are of the quality they should be, having regard to their grade at the other side. It would be a disastrous thing, for instance, to grade your eggs and to export them as selected, and then to find that the eggs, when they reached England, were not up to the mark. You could do a lot more harm by rushing the Bill and the regulations than by leaving the Bill alone. If the Bill is successful it must be thought out very carefully and put into operation very carefully.

I do not like to hear the Minister say the Bill could not be put into operation sooner than August. I did not think it would have to be kept back so far as that.

Mr. HOGAN

I did not say so.

I apologise. It would not create a good impression if it were said it could not be put into operation sooner than August. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, but I would like to hear the Minister say that his Department will do everything to hasten the Bill becoming operative, and that they will help in every possible way to make it operative, earlier than August.

Mr. HOGAN

I say I cannot definitely guarantee that we will be in a position to put the Bill into operation on the 1st January. We have the power, and as far as we are concerned, we will endeavour to expedite matters as much as possible, so as to put the Bill into operation at the earliest possible moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE at this stage took the Chair.
Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
In this Act—
the words "the Minister" means the Minister for Agriculture;
the word "package" includes any box, crate, case, wrapper, or other receptacle containing or capable of containing eggs for transport, and, where the context so requires, includes the contents of such receptacle;
the word "inspector" includes any person authorised (either generally or for a special occasion) by the Minister to exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties conferred and imposed on an inspector by this Act;
the word "eggs" means eggs in the shell of domestic fowls and ducks;
the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made under this Act;
the expression "register of exporters" means the register kept pursuant to this Act under that name;
the expression "register of preservers" means the register kept pursuant to this Act and under that name.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1 in Section 2:—

In line 19, after the word "for" to insert the words "lands and."

Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) Subject to the exceptions mentioned in this section all eggs exported from Saorstát Eireann after the commencement of this Act shall comply with the following conditions, that is to say—
(a) the eggs shall have been tested, graded and packed in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any regulations made thereunder upon premises then registered in the register of exporters, and
(b) the eggs shall not have been removed from the package in which they were so packed upon such premises, and
(c) the eggs shall be clean and fit for human consumption, and
(d) each of the eggs and also the package containing such eggs shall be marked with the marks (if any) prescribed by regulations made under this Act, and
(e) the eggs shall be exported direct from the registered premises upon which they were packed.
(2) Every person who shall at any time after the expiration of two months from the commencement of this Act export or attempt to export any eggs which do not comply with all the conditions prescribed by the foregoing sub-section shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
(3) Every person who shall carry by land or sea for reward any eggs which are being or are intended to be exported in contravention of this section shall, if such carrying is done in the course or for the purpose of the exportation of such eggs, be guilty of an offence under this section unless such person proves that he did not know and could not reasonably have known that such eggs were being exported in contravention of this section.
(4) Every person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or, at the discretion of the court to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(5) This section shall not apply to any eggs exported—
(a) by means of the parcel post; or
(b) in any consignment the total gross weight of which does not exceed the maximum weight for the time being allowed to be sent by the parcel post; or
(c) for the purpose of incubation in quantities not exceeding five dozen contained in packages marked in the prescribed manner; or
(d) under and in accordance with an exportation licence granted under this Act; or
(e) in a package consigned and forwarded through Saorstát Eireann from any place outside Saorstát Eireann to any other such place but not otherwise dealt with in Saorstát Eireann.

I beg to move amendment 2:—

In sub-section (5) (c), line 36, to delete the words "five dozen" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "the prescribed maximum."

It is considered desirable that the maximum should be fixed by regulation under the Act rather than by the Act itself.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move Amendment 1 (b):—

In sub-section (1) (d), page 3, line 7, to delete the words "if any."

My idea in deleting these words "if any" is to make it compulsory that the eggs in the packages shall be marked and the insertion of the words would not make the marking compulsory. There is no obligation, or may be no obligation, to mark the eggs. I want to have this section read, so that there shall be no doubt or question whatever but that the eggs and the packages shall have to be marked.

Mr. HOGAN

It is clear in the Bill that the regulations will include the marking of the packages. I take it what is in the Deputy's mind is not so much the marking of the eggs—that is why we put in the words "if any"— but the point is whether it should be mandatory that the eggs produced in the country should be marked if sold. If the words "if any" come out the regulation might include a regulation stating that every egg sold in the country must be marked. I do not think there is any necessity for that, and I do think it would be almost impossible to administer any such regulation. Look at what it means. We have not attempted to regulate all the trade, because I do not think any egg Bill ever introduced intended to do that. We think we are going a pretty fair way in regulating the export trade. This particular amendment would mean that we would have to regulate the marking of eggs in the case of the producer, retailer, wholesaler, exporter—anybody that sold an egg.

For export?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, for export. Of course that amounts to the same thing. When a producer sells an egg he does not know whether it is going to be exported ultimately or not. If Deputy Baxter's intentions are to be put into operation every egg that is sold for export must be marked. The words "if any" were put in to safeguard ourselves against the necessity of marking every egg, and really to express our own intentions. We do not intend to mark every egg, but we have the power to mark every egg in certain circumstances under that phrase "if any." We do not want to make that mandatory, and that is what Deputy Baxter is at, and that is also the point made in some of the subsequent amendments that have been put down. Denmark has been quoted. I am almost certain that there is no legislation in Denmark entitling a State Department to make a regulation for the marking of every egg. I do know, however, that societies of egg producers in Denmark compel their members to mark their eggs. That regulation, I understand, has practically fallen away entirely, and now only about one-ninth of the total export trade from Denmark consists of marked eggs. There is another reason against this. Recent experience shows that as few marks as possible should be put on the eggs. First of all, if the producer is to mark them he is one seller; then if the retailer has to mark them, he is another seller. The exporter then has to clean off the previous marks and to mark them again. Nothing disimproves the quality of eggs so much as cleaning them by wrong methods. The tendency in recent years is against any marking of eggs or anything that would necessitate re-cleaning them. I do not see any necessity for making it compulsory that each egg should be marked. We have the option to do so if necessary, but I think it would be a very dangerous thing to make the marking compulsory or to enforce by regulation the marking of eggs.

I do not agree with the Minister when he says that to administer this would be a very great difficulty. In my opinion there would be no greater difficulty experienced in marking the eggs than there will be in determining whether they are fresh or properly graded. My intention is that the inspection made at the exporter's premises shall be for the purpose of seeing that the eggs are marked. I would not dream of suggesting that the eggs should first be marked at the farmer's place and again by the dealer who purchases them, and a third time by the exporters. If such a scheme as that were to be put forward I recognise that it would be impossible to administer it. In my opinion, if it is made mandatory to have the eggs marked when inspected at the exporter's premises that will be sufficient. There will be no need whatever for two or three markings. The exporter will not take the eggs unless they are marked. That will be a form of compulsion that I think will prove very effective. Already some farmers are marking the eggs. The Minister referred to the custom in Denmark. My idea is that if there is one mark put on at the farmer's house there will be no necessity for any further marking. I would be absolutely opposed to marking the eggs two or three times, but I think the first seller should mark the egg. That will be an identification mark, and when that identification mark is put upon it it will be quite easy to trace back the egg, in case of complaints, to the first seller. If a mandatory regulation is made on this matter the exporters will not take eggs unless they are properly marked. As to what they may be doing in Denmark at the moment, I am not in a position to speak on that, but what I do know is that the trade has been brought to such a standard of perfection in that country that I am sure they can dispense with marking the eggs there altogether. The farmers in that country have been trained and educated on the lines that they must organise their produce for export purposes. They know that a certain standard must be reached if they are to hold their place in the market and because of the long training and education they have received in this matter they know that it is up to them to maintain that standard. Of course, they take every step that is necessary to maintain their present high position in the market, and hence there is no necessity for them to have a system of compulsory marking. It is different with us, and I think it is absolutely necessary that we should have a system of compulsory marking so that we may establish in the world markets a reputation such as the farmers of Denmark have already attained.

The great thing to provide against in this Act is evasion of the regulations. In my opinion, if the egg is not stamped at the source there will be nothing but evasion. You cannot hold the exporter responsible. He can shift the responsibility, but if there is an identification mark on the egg you can get back to the source from which it came originally. If our people get the chance to indulge in these little evasions they may take advantage of it. It is human nature that they would do so. I think that the Minister should adopt Deputy Baxter's suggestion, and insist on having the eggs marked at the source. That will do away with all evasion.

I want again to support Deputy Baxter in his view in this matter. I am afraid the Minister seems to assume that there is going to be a continuation of the method whereby the shopkeeper or the grader going around collecting a few eggs here and there will then transfer them to the wholesaler and nobody will be able to recognise where the eggs came from, and only the wholesaler will be held responsible. I believe it is desirable that the responsibility for identification should go right back to the farmer who sold the egg originally. I do not understand what the Minister means when he suggests that there would be a marking and then a removal of the marks. I had hoped, on the contrary, that the original mark would remain until the consumer bought the egg.

I think that there is in this, as there has been in another question—the butter question—a difference of opinion as to whether we are aiming at satisfying the consumer's demand for good quality eggs, or in the other case butter, or, whether we are simply trying to satisfy the trade in England with the quality. There is something to be said for both. It may be said that if you can satisfy the trade in England that the quality is good that is all you need aim at. I am inclined to think that it is still better to try to satisfy not merely the traders but the consumers, and to make them realise that when they are getting Irish eggs they are really getting good quality. It may be with the keen competition between Irish and Danish eggs, supposing the two qualities are more or less even, that the trader will not mind whether he mixes up Irish eggs with Danish eggs. He will say that they are all fresh eggs. It is only because the Danish eggs have got a character, or maybe it is that the Irish eggs have got a character that appeals to the trader or shopkeeper in England that he announces them as Irish or Danish.

If they become equal in quality, then there will be no need to mark them with the country of origin. I would like to have it come about that every Irish egg in England would be known to be Irish by the consumer, and that the quality would be such that the demand will be for Irish eggs even above Danish eggs, and that it will be to the advantage of the consumer and shopkeeper to announce them as Irish eggs. I think that can be done much better by imposing upon the original seller the obligation of identifying the eggs with a particular farm. As to the intermediaries, I would leave that matter entirely to the exporter. If there be intermediaries, let the exporter look after that. The exporter may be able by his organisation and arrangement to have some kind of register of the original sellers, and that register would easily identify the original egg producer. I think that that is almost of more importance than the registration of the exporter. If you can throw the responsibility upon the farmer's wife of producing and selling clean eggs which will be identified, or which will not be allowed to go out of the country, and as a consequence will make a much lower price in the markets, that is the way to arrive at the end we seek to reach, and which will establish a character for those eggs in the English market.

Mr. EGAN

I am in agreement with what Deputy Johnson and Deputy Baxter have said, but I want to know how the Minister is to give practical effect to it. Surely no one thinks that it is at all possible that every single farmer in Ireland will have a brand of his own.

Why not?

Mr. EGAN

Well, I am afraid that will not work. If you pursue that line of argument to its logical conclusion it appears to me that every woman who owns one or two hens should have a brand of her own. I do not see how it would work.

It is as easy to deal with this question as with the question of motor cars. Deputies may laugh at that if they wish. There is, of course, a difference in size, and perhaps in the quality of the article.

Mr. HOGAN

And in number.

If the county is too large divide it up into smaller areas. Supposing there are 20,000 people in the county who are producing eggs, then I suggest you divide the county into smaller areas and you will find that it is as easy to trace an egg as to trace a motor car to-day. If you have half a million people stamping eggs it is quite an easy matter. If you have to get the eggs stamped by the big exporter he would want to have a large staff to do it. If there is a difficulty at the source of origin surely there is a huge difficulty if you throw it on the exporter. Any woman on a farm could quite easily stamp her eggs every morning and evening. You have the people at all the egg stations in the country stamping them and they are people in the same station and of the same intelligence as the ordinary farmer's or labourer's wife. It is quite as easy to do it in the case of these as it is to do it in the case of people who keep egg stations and, at any rate, by doing it in this way you will guarantee compliance with the law, and a standard and sound article. Otherwise you cannot.

Mr. HOGAN

I am glad to learn from Deputy Gorey that the point of view of the farmer is changing. The farmers used not welcome inspectors nor officials from the Department of Agriculture in the past. They used to be most unpopular.

Farmers, as I knew them, used to be sarcastic at the expense of the inspectors. If four hundred thousand or perhaps five hundred thousand egg-producers have to mark their eggs, and if we have to see to it that they do so, they will get very used to Government inspectors and officials. What we should aim at is to make Irish eggs synonymous with fresh eggs in the mind of the consumer.

That is a difficulty. It is not so in connection with butter, because a woman buys a pound of butter and she sees by the mark outside that it is Irish creamery butter. She knows what she is getting and that Irish butter is good for her. As regards eggs, there is a difference, because in the shop she buys fresh eggs and unless they are marked there is nothing to indicate their place of origin. If we improve the standard of eggs, it will be a great advertisement for Irish eggs if we can show the English consumer and the consumers in other markets that the term "fresh egg" and the term "Irish egg" means the same thing. The purpose of the amendment is to make every producer stamp his or her own eggs. I will refer you to the section. If we take out the words "if any," how does that affect the Deputy's purpose? The section only deals with exporters, as Deputy Johnson has pointed out. Merely taking out the words "if any" would not make us any better.

They are not sufficient.

Mr. HOGAN

They are not. Later on there is an amendment to the only section which deals with the trade as a whole. That is Section 18, and the amendment which I am going to suggest is one that I will now read for you. The amendment I suggest is as follows:—

"To add to the Section 3 new subsections as follows:—

"With a view to preventing the sale, exchange or barter, and the offering or exposing for sale, exchange or barter of eggs which are externally dirty or are unfit for human consumption, the Minister may by order make regulations in regard to all or any of the following matters, that is to say—(a) the packages and packing materials used for packing eggs, (b) the method and manner in all or any respects of protecting eggs from wet, damp, dirt or contamination of any sort while stored and in course of packing or transport, and (c) the marking for identification purposes of eggs or the packages containing eggs.

(3) Any person who contravenes in any respect any regulation made under this section shall be guilty of an offence against this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or at the discretion of the court imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

(4) Regulations made under this section shall not apply to any circumstances in respect of which the Minister is authorised by any other section of this Act to make regulations in regard to similar subject matter."

Section 18, as you will observe, includes everybody. It is the only section of the Bill that deals with people who are not producers and with people who are not exporters. If you are to make any further regulations with regard to people who are not exporters, those regulations should be made in connection with this section. The amendment I have read gives us power to make regulations in respect to the marking of eggs by people other than the exporter. That gives us all that Deputy Baxter wants, unless he wants a mandatory provision in the Bill compelling all producers to mark their eggs. Why should that provision be forced in at this stage? In the course of discussion afterwards it may be found that if we were to add anything in order to effect Deputy Johnson's purpose—identifying Irish eggs on the English market—it might be better and easier and simpler to deal with 800 exporters instead of 400,000 producers.

I do not think we should close the door at this moment and plump definitely for making the producer mark the egg. We have power to make such a regulation if we think it necessary under the amendment I have read. Why should it be made mandatory now, and why should it not be left open to us to consider other alternatives for the marking of eggs at other stages? It would be an extraordinary thing in a Bill like this, a drastic Bill which gives wide powers of regulation over the trade. The mandatory provisions in it should be as few as possible. It is a realisation of the danger and difficulty and delicacy of the subject, that makes it essential, when bringing in a Bill to regulate an important trade like this that there should be power afterwards to make additional regulations after full consideration of each specific point, and after obtaining the views of interests concerned and of everybody who has information to give on the subject. In view of the complications and intricacies of the trade, you could not possibly anticipate every point, every possibility and every reaction of any regulation which you might now make. It is unsound, in my opinion, to make any provision of the sort suggested mandatory, and to take at this stage one decision as against the three or four decisions that we might take in changing circumstances.

I am not yet convinced that the Minister is making a good case against this amendment. It deals with the export of eggs, and he is proposing to license exporters. I do not know how many exporters there will be.

Mr. HOGAN

Eight hundred.

They probably will be reduced after a little while to 80. The effect of this Bill will probably be closer organisation. I think we ought to legislate with a view to assisting these exporters, to tighten up the organisation as between the producer and the market in England. The operation of this mandatory section would not necessitate that every farmer or egg producer should mark his or her eggs. If they did not want to sell to an exporter for a market across the water then they need not mark the eggs under this section, and the later amendment that the Minister suggests might then be inoperative. When we are trying to produce an article, and to establish a character for it in the English market, we want to induce the exporters to manage their business with a view to that, and we can assist them in doing it by obliging them to buy only from those producers who want to sell in the English markets, and they will know that the best prices are given for exportable eggs, and these will be the eggs with an identification mark. By that means you will induce the producer to conform generally with the scheme outlined in the Bill, and to play up to the high standard that is required to get the highest prices. In that way you will. I think, be making it mandatory, and prevent the odd man or odd woman from trying to take an advantage by slipping in a few bad eggs, in the hope that they will not be detected, and you will assist exporters in doing their work efficiently.

They will want to have as few tests, and as few throw-outs, as, possible. When they come to grading, packing, and testing, they do not want to see any number thrown out, if possible. If we can assist them by making it an obligation on the original seller, we are simplifying the final testing very, very much indeed, and we are ensuring the success of the scheme, as from the producers' end. We all know the story of the Scottish minister whose congregation proposed to give him a present on the occasion of his silver wedding, or something of that kind. They decided that they would give him a little keg of whiskey, each of them to bring their little portion. They each brought their bottle of whiskey, and poured it into the keg, and they then made their present. They were all asked to drink the health of the minister, and lo and behold, it was all pure water they drank. Every person thought he was taking advantage of the remainder. I want to prevent that sort of thing, and we know, as a matter of fact, that it is not unusual in this country for the seller of eggs in the beginning to put in a few that are not good. How are you going to test them, how are you going to check that if they have to pass through two or three hands? Unless the original buyer is to make the test, and be equally bound with the rest, you are not going to succeed. The original buyer may try to get a few bad eggs through but if you can contrive a means of identifying the original seller with a particular egg, I think you are accomplishing much more than the general provisions of the Bill without that provision will enable you to accomplish. I hope, whether this is accepted or not, that it will be the urgent purpose of the Ministry to impose obligations of the kind that have been indicated by Deputy Baxter.

I do not know how it would help, but I ask the Minister to remember that a good many societies are already forming and functioning, disposing of eggs that carry the brand of the society with the identification mark of each supplier. That system is already in operation voluntarily, and the sooner that that is helped by a provision in the Bill the better, and the sooner you will have an article that you can really stand over. There would be no evasion or possibility of evasion if you had that system. You would be simply shutting all gates and you would arrive in a short time at the ideal position. I see the time when cooperative and dairy societies will also handle these, and the sooner the egg producers are driven into these societies the better. It is a point that deserves a good deal of consideration between this and the next stage of the Bill. In view of what the voluntary societies are doing, I think the Minister should see how he can help in that direction.

I wonder would the Minister tell me how long a fresh egg is a fresh egg?

From my point of view the remainder of the Bill is not of so much importance as the deletion of these two words. I feel as strongly from my point of view as the Minister feels on his. Deputy Egan agrees that it would be a good thing to do if it were possible to do it, without any great trouble or difficulty. Within the past few weeks I have had experience of a small organisation of farmers who have themselves voluntarily decided to do this. They are a district, and they are given a letter, "C." Each of the suppliers gets a number, and the eggs are stamped voluntarily with their own identification stamp. I have known suppliers to send in eggs, perhaps by accident, that were not up to the standard.

Let us imagine a big trader taking in a large quantity of eggs in a rush of business. He may not be in a position at a certain period in the day to test the eggs as they are given in. He will be in a position to count them; that may be just as much as he can conveniently do. But if the suppliers have not some identification marks he must test them before they are taken in order to determine whether they are up to the standard or not. If there is an identification mark he has only to weigh them and pay the supplier. If they are not up to the standard he knows who the supplier is; he has the supplier registered. Let us come to the exporter. In introducing the Bill the Minister pointed out that because exported eggs would have to be tested and graded it would raise the standard of the article in the home market. That is exactly what I want, and I want all the eggs that will come to the exporter, whether they are to be exported or sold in the home market, to be up to a certain standard, and that it shall be against the law for the exporter to have on his premises any eggs that are not properly marked. Would the Minister suggest that it would be possible at any time for the exporter to do all this marking and stamping? Would he even suggest that the small trader would do it? It may be, and I have no doubt that many farmers will object to doing this. I recognise that fact, but what I see in it is this: if there is to be marking or stamping of eggs, and if the farmers do not do it, the other people must. If so, they will be absolutely certain to make the farmers pay them for the labour that it will entail. It would be a much cheaper and better system to have it done at home, and it would be much more effective if it were mandatory that no exporter should have on his premises any eggs that are not marked, and you may be sure that the exporter will not take them from the small trader unless they are marked, and the small trader again will not take them from the seller unless they are marked.

Mr. HOGAN

The aim of this amendment, as I have pointed out, is to compel the producer to mark the eggs. We are at one in that. The idea is to compel the producer to mark the eggs.

That he wants to sell for export.

Mr. HOGAN

Yes; it is the same thing. Of course, any producer selling his eggs across the counter will know whether they are for export or not. It amounts to the same thing, that he will have to mark any eggs that he is selling, unless he is selling them to a neighbour. The aim of the amendment is that all the eggs which he sells must be marked. Whether that is right or wrong this is not the place to insert such an amendment. Deputies need not get alarmed; there are 18 sections in the Bill. We will have to discuss all the other sections. We will come to the sections dealing with the sale of eggs in general. But here is the section which professedly sets out to deal with the export trade, and we are endeavouring to insert an amendment which indirectly will get at the producer. That is really not the way to draft legislation. This section and this particular portion of the Bill deals with the exporters, and it is a nice point in law in my opinion, whether the taking out of the words "if any" would make any real difference. But there is no occasion for us to argue in an indirect way like this. Deputy Baxter's and Deputy Johnson's idea is to take out the words "if any." Then there must be a mark on every egg in every exporter's premises and therefore they must insist on getting marked eggs from all producers. That is really the suggestion. Now, that is getting at it indirectly, and if it is to be made mandatory at all the proper place to put in the necessary amendment is section 18, which deals not only with the exporters but with anybody who sells eggs. If that point were agreed on I could reserve my thunder until we came to section 18. I suggest that this is unsound. Certain sections have been drafted carefully with a view to the exporter, and with a view to the liabilities of the exporter, and to try to get into this section regulations which on the face of them would seem to apply to an exporter but which are merely an indirect way of forcing the producer to do a certain thing, is certainly not the right way to go about the business, especially in view of the fact that we have another section dealing not only with exporters but with people who sell eggs.

Sub-paragraph (c) states "the eggs shall be clean and fit for human consumption." Does he assume that in practice it is the buyer at any point that dirties the egg. Is it or is it not?

Mr. HOGAN

Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not.

I suggest that if the Minister would inquire he would find that in nine cases out of ten it is from the producers' end that the eggs are dirtied.

Mr. HOGAN

It is in the course of collection it occurs. The cause is really wet straw.

I suggest, in nine cases out of ten, that it is from the producers' end the eggs are dirtied. Whether it is nine cases or three cases out of ten, does not matter. If you are going to impose an obligation upon the exporter of eggs by this sub-section to supply clean eggs, then you should impose some kind of obligation on the producer in the next paragraph. That part of the Minister's argument falls.

Mr. HOGAN

We are at cross-purposes. I did not make that point.

I do not think the question need be discussed on the merits, or whether this is the right place to do it or not. If we can agree that it ought to be done, then the question as to how it can be done is one for consideration at a later stage. Will the Minister agree to make it obligatory that persons selling eggs which may be exported, or which are to be exported, shall be identifiable? I do not know whether the practice is the same in every egg market as it is in the North of Ireland markets, but if the Minister ever had the pleasure of being in Ballinahinch, Armagh, or Portadown, on a market day in March, he would see how impossible it is for the exporter to deal with eggs in the manner required in this Bill, unless there is some identification. As a matter of fact, the practice in these markets, whatever it might be in other places, is that you will have people buying eggs for home consumption, and people buying eggs for export. If such a provision as this was in operation, and the producers wanted to go to a buyer who is going to export eggs, that exporter would insist on all these eggs being marked. If they were for home consumption, of course, there would not be any obligation, unless it was found in practice that it was better to have identifiable eggs, than otherwise. I believe it will be found, very soon after the operation of such a provision as this, that every purchaser of eggs for home consumption, or for export, will require to have identifiable eggs. I agree with Deputy Baxter—I am not going to argue whether this is the right way to do it or not—that provision should be made in the Bill that eggs purchased by an exporter should have an identification mark. I would like the Dáil to support Deputy Baxter in this motion. I think the Minister ought to be gratified, and I think the trade ought to be gratified, and to go out of their way to meet the farmers, after hearing that the farmers' representatives in the Dáil are pressing for a provision of this kind. I would have thought that the Minister would have jumped at the offer, and been very glad to embody this provision in the Bill. Certainly the exporters ought to welcome it, as it is meeting their case, and assisting them to establish a trade that will save them unnecessary expense. That expense will be avoided if this provision is adopted. I think the Minister will make a serious mistake if he does not assist in meeting the purpose Deputy Baxter has in view. To repel the farmers' representatives, when they are pleading with him to make regulations regarding the quality of their production, is a stroke of bad policy. I say he ought to clinch the bargain, and use it to the full. I think the Farmers' Party are well advised in pressing this matter, and I hope the Minister will not lose the opportunity of embodying in the Bill, either in this form or in some other form, what will probably be the most valuable provision in regard to these new regulations respecting the trade in eggs.

I would suggest to the Minister that this is the right time to make the change. If this amendment is agreed to, it will have the effect of making it mandatory on the exporter to see that the eggs are branded. The Minister said a moment ago that farmers would not approve of having inspectors constantly visiting their farms. If the Minister makes it mandatory on the sellers of eggs to have those eggs branded, it will, in my opinion, make it unnecessary to have inspection of the farmsteads. The intention of this amendment was to make it mandatory on the exporter to see that the eggs are branded and if the Minister accepts that, the exporter will take good care that the people who supply the eggs to him will comply with the obligation. The Minister will then only have to look to the exporter, and will not have to worry about the egg producer.

I would like to say that I thoroughly concur with what Deputy Johnson says, and I think the Minister should be delighted that the farmers are advancing more than he is in this direction. I might tell the Minister that this is not a policy on our part which will be popular down the country. But we think it is the right thing that we should take a foremost part in securing that our produce reaches the London market in first-class condition, and that it should be first-grade. We think we are doing the right thing in forcing that view on the Minister.

Mr. HOGAN

I want to know if that is the point of view of every Deputy sitting on the Farmers' benches?

Mr. HOGAN

I do not hear Deputy Wilson answer. I agree with Deputy Johnson that perhaps the better way to approach this is to consider not whether this amendment effects the intention, but whether we can agree as to the particular change that Deputy Baxter wishes to make. The issue is absolutely knit. He wants to make it mandatory, in fact, on every producer to mark his eggs. He has his own way of doing it, and we can discuss that afterwards. I agree that this Bill, when introduced, was in need of improvement in regard to Section 18. Deputy Baxter himself raised that point on Second Reading. He stated that there was need for some further provisions in the Bill which would safeguard the exporter. I agree as to that, and I agree that it would be a pity if this Bill left the Dáil without giving powers to the Ministry over, not only the exporter, but the producer. What I am not prepared to do is to take out one particular power like that in the Bill and make it mandatory. Remember, there is very little difference between us. Deputy Baxter and Deputy Johnson want to make it mandatory on us to compel, by regulation, every producer in the country to mark his eggs. We have in this Bill taken power to do that if necessary.

resumed the Chair.

Mr. HOGAN

We are fully empowered to do that. The only difference between us, therefore, is that Deputy Baxter and Deputy Johnson would leave us no discretion. They would force us to commit ourselves immediately to the policy that every egg produced—I make no exceptions, because it would amount to that in fact and in practice—should be marked. I have, I think, stated the position between us fairly. If we are agreed that that is the issue, I do think, on consideration, that Deputies should not insist on making that provision mandatory. Now, how long will this Bill be in operation? It may be 10 or 15 or 20 years. The conditions of trade change rapidly. Of course we could bring in a Bill to cover every point, but the reason we are leaving ourselves the power to make regulations is because we do not want to be under the necessity of bringing in a Bill in regard to every change in the trade. It is agreed that the power to make regulations should be wide and general. But here you are, at this stage, committing yourselves definitely to making a certain regulation regardless of the fact that time—and a very short time —may put that regulation out of date. I do not think that Deputies should take up the position that this question is not arguable, because I contend, even if it is arguable, that eggs or certain classes of eggs should not be marked, then you should not make it mandatory. It is certainly arguable. We cannot afford just to brush aside what happened in Denmark. In Denmark they started by marking all the eggs. Now they do not do so. That is a difficulty you cannot close your eyes to, notwithstanding Deputy Johnson's eagerness to make a fresh egg and an Irish egg synonymous terms. It does not at all improve the appearance of an egg to have it marked. That is the cause of the change in the Danish trade. Why did the people of Denmark—and they know their business— drop the marking? There must have been a good reason. They may have been wrong. Experience may prove them to have been wrong, but we should not assume now absolutely that they are wrong and legislate on the assumption that the question is not even arguable. There is another important point: a mark on an egg, especially a mark that identifies it with the country of production, should be a mark really to show first grade and first grade only. It is the same as butter. It is not a good thing to identify second grade or third grade stuff with a particular country. The mark should be a mark of excellence. It should be a mark of premium produce and it should be a mark that should only go on premium produce.

That is undoubtedly an aspect that has to be taken into consideration. Further, you will have preserved eggs. There will have to be stale eggs—eggs that are not exactly fresh. Why force the producer to mark these eggs? Russia, which has an immense trade in eggs, exports eggs which are not fresh, because she is far away—eggs which are perfectly good for custard and things of that sort. Why should we mark every egg? If they are to be marked at all, mark only the premium quality. You must leave the regulations elastic. We can decide afterwards whether it is good business to mark eggs, and, secondly, if it is considered necessary to mark eggs, we can decide what class of eggs is to be marked. But to make it mandatory at this stage that all classes of eggs are to be marked would be absurd, in view of the fact that eggs that are not quite fresh, third-grade eggs, will have to be exported. I have gone as far as I am convinced I ought to go. The Bill gives us power to make the necessary regulations, and what I object to is making these things mandatory in every changing circumstance.

I should like to know why third-grade eggs should be exported. Is not the object of this Bill that all eggs exported should be practically fresh—at least second-grade eggs, anyhow?

Mr. HOGAN

Is the Deputy serious? There are bound to be preserved eggs.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 20; Níl, 39.

  • Pádraig F. Baxter.
  • John Conlan.
  • Seán de Faoite.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Donchadh S. O Guaire.
  • Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg P.O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).

Níl

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • William Hewat.
  • Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh. Séamus N. O Dóláin.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Pádraic O Máille.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
  • Caomhghín O hUigín.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Partholán O Conchubhair.
  • Pádraig Mac Ualghairg.
Amendment declared lost.
Barr
Roinn