Senators will observe that three Messages from the Dáil appear on the Order Paper. The first of these intimates that the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill has been passed into law under Article 38A of the Constitution. The other two Messages relate to the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill. In the case of the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill the Seanad differed from the Dáil on a matter of principle, and the Bill was passed under the provisions expressly provided for such a contingency. Though nothing falls to be done by this House in regard to that Message, I have placed it on the Order Paper as I considered that in the case of Bills passed in this way Senators should have before them the actual Message from the Dáil.

The position in regard to the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill is essentially different, although it would appear from the terms of the similar Message (No. 5 on the Order Paper) that the cases were parallel. There is, however, another Message (No. 4 on the Order Paper) which actually asks for our concurrence in the course taken by the other House, and I feel that I would not be doing my duty as Chairman of this House if I did not advert to the circumstances under which that Message comes to be on our Order Paper to-day, and under which that Bill became law.

Article 38A was inserted in the Constitution in substitution for part of Article 38 by the Constitution (Amendment No. 13) Act in July, 1928. The new Article provided that in case there was a deadlock between the two Houses over a Bill the will of the Dáil should prevail after a certain period, or after a general election for members of the Dáil. But, as regards the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, what are the facts? This Bill was passed by the Dáil on December 7th, 1932, and was given a Second Reading in this House on December 15th without a division. In order to suit the convenience of the Minister in charge of the Bill the Committee Stage was fixed for January 11th of this year and the Seanad adjourned until that day.

On January 2nd the Dáil was dissolved. On the reassembly of the Dáil there were three courses open to the Government in respect of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill:—

(i) To send the Bill to the Seanad otherwise than under Article 38A.

(ii) To pass a resolution under Article 38A and to leave the minimum time of 60 days for the completion of the Bill.

(iii) To pass a similar resolution, but to extend the time for consideration of the Bill by agreement with the Seanad.

As the Seanad had shown every intention of proceeding with the Bill without delay or factitious opposition, it might have been expected that the Government would have chosen to send the Bill to the Seanad otherwise than under Article 38A but, on the contrary, they chose to send it to the Seanad under that Article and with the minimum time allowed by the Constitution for its completion. The Bill was so sent to the Seanad on March 1st and given a new Second Reading without discussion on Wednesday, March 8th. The Committee Stage was taken one week later, on March 15th, and completed on March 16th. The Report Stage was taken on March 22nd and the Bill passed the Seanad on March 29th. No Bill of such complexity and importance could be dealt with adequately in a shorter time.

The Seanad inserted 44 amendments in the Bill, of which 29 were amendments introduced by the Government— mostly to remedy defects which they had found in the Bill after it had left the Dáil. The remaining 15 were inserted by the Seanad without the Government's approval. The Bill was returned to the Dáil on the day it was passed and the Seanad amendments appeared on the Dáil Order Paper for the next day. Instead of considering them then, the Dáil ordered that they should be taken on April 26th. That is, on the 57th day after the Bill had been sent to the Seanad under Article 38A, and 28 days after it appeared on the Order Paper of the Dáil. In other words, the Dáil delayed the consideration of the Seanad amendments for 28 days and proposed to allow the Seanad a mere three days at most to consider any message the Dáil might send concerning them. But even on the 57th day the consideration of these amendments was not undertaken. The Minister for Agriculture stated that the amendments would not be taken on that day but on May 3rd, which, it should be noted, was four days after the expiration of the 60 days allowed by the Constitution, and a formal order was made accordingly. This mistake was remedied later in the day and the amendments were ordered to be considered on April 27th, the 58th day, at 7.30 p.m. The time is worth noting. They were actually dealt with on April 27th and finally disposed of after 9 p.m. The Message was presumably sent to the Seanad before 10 p.m., and it was received by the Clerk next morning, that is, on the 59th day, which was last Friday week. The 29 amendments introduced by the Government, mainly to correct mistakes discovered in the Bill after it was passed by the Dáil, were accepted and the 15 other amendments were rejected. The Seanad, though it had shown every disposition to meet the Government with regard to the Bill and had made every effort to pass it quickly, was thus given a period of less than two days (one of which was a Saturday) in which to consider the Message from the Dáil requesting agreement before the operation of the Constitution made all further action on the Bill impossible; and this was caused, first by the Government's action in sending the Bill to the Seanad under Article 38A of the Constitution and secondly by the delay of 28 days in the Dáil. I considered the question of calling a meeting of the Seanad to deal with the Message from the Dáil; I may say that I considered it in anticipation. But it was obvious to me that even if telegrams had been sent to Senators as soon as the Message from the Dáil was received it would be very difficult for many of them to attend a meeting called at a few hours' notice, and that it would have been impossible for them to have given any proper consideration to a Message which would not reach them until the beginning of the meeting. Accordingly, a meeting of this House would have been absolutely useless, and I decided not to call it. I may say in passing that, had the Dáil dealt with the Seanad amendments without undue delay, judging from the course of the debate in this House, I am of opinion that the Bill would have been passed into law before Easter.

The Bill is now law by virtue of Article 38A pursuant to a resolution of the Dáil (No. 5 on the Order Paper) by which it is made to appear as though it had been passed over the head of a dissenting Seanad, and that its position was the same as that of the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth, which is that this House did everything possible to improve the Bill in a constructive spirit and to meet the reasonable wishes of the Government in regard thereto; and the fact that it has now been passed over our heads is due to factors over which we have no control.

In regard to No. 4 on the Order Paper, as this Message purports on its face to request the agreement of this House thereto, I direct that, in view of the fact that the period of 60 days provided in Article 38A of the Constitution expired on Saturday, April 29th, the Message and the date of receipt thereof be entered on the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad. As no action can be taken on items 3, 4 and 5, I cannot allow a debate on them or on my statement. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is present and, if he should desire to offer any explanation of the matter, I am sure the House will be glad to hear it.

Before the Minister speaks——

I cannot allow any Senator to make any speech.

Not even to carry out the wishes contained in your statement?

I am afraid not.

Your statement is, in my opinion, a direct vote of censure on the Dáil.

I am afraid I cannot allow any speech.

I desire to say that, in adopting the procedure followed in relation to the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, it was certainly not intended to show any discourtesy to you or to the Seanad. This Bill, I think, is the first of those which have been enacted by the Oireachtas since the establishment of the Free State in respect of which this procedure was followed and, consequently, there was no previous practice available as a headline in determining the procedure. I am unable to say what was the main cause of the delay in considering in the Dáil the amendments which were adopted in the Seanad, although I assume that it was due to the pressure of business and the adjournment for a period over Easter. The decision of the Government to follow, in relation to this Bill, the same practice as that followed in respect of the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, was taken, having regard to all the circumstances and the necessity, as it appeared to the Government, of securing speedy enactment of the measure in view of the fact that its enactment would have a very direct bearing on activities under it in the present year. I think I can say no more at this stage than again to assure you, and through you the members of the House, that discourtesy was not intended, and that the Government regrets sincerely that the Seanad did not have an opportunity of considering the message from the Dáil, following consideration by the Dáil of the amendments inserted in the Seanad.