Might I intervene for a moment in connection with a point to which I should have referred yesterday? It was rather in the hurry of the debate that I neglected to do so. A question was raised yesterday as to my not making a preliminary speech on the Second Reading of the Electricity (Supply) Bill. I had intended to say that it has been my understanding of the procedure in this House that a Minister is not expected to follow the ordinary procedure of the Dáil—that is to say, to make an introductory speech on a Bill. I was quite prepared to do that if I had been asked. I did so on the previous Shannon Bill when I was asked to do so. My first experience in this House was the Railways Bill, and I understood that that was the procedure. I had thought that in view of the lengthy discussions that had taken place in the Dáil and elsewhere the provisions of this Bill would have been sufficiently understood, but I do want to explain to the House that there was no intention on my part to treat the House with what appears to have been taken, by one member of the House at least, as discourtesy or an attempt to mislead it by not explaining what I thought had already been well explained.
QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.
I am glad to hear the Minister's explanation, and anything I have said in the matter I now withdraw. I speak subject to correction, but I think it has been the general custom for Ministers to make an explanatory statement on the introduction of a Bill here. That has lapsed to a large extent of late, I recognise, but I do not see that it ought to lapse, especially in the case of a very difficult and lengthy Bill of this sort, which requires explanation. The Minister's explanation was discussed in other places, but the Seanad is not supposed to depend entirely on discussions in the Dáil and before outside bodies, and on what appears in the newspapers. My opinion is that it would be very much better and more convenient if any Minister, not this Minister in particular, would make a statement before hand on a Bill, and not merely speak at the end in a carping way, and criticise special statements that Senators had made. I think that would be more convenient.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The House will, of course, understand that this is a matter over which I have no control. It is a matter entirely for the individual Minister concerned. Speaking for myself, I think that generally it would be more desirable—and I think that the Ministers have recognised that—that Ministers should make a statement as regards any Bill at the earliest possible stage. But there is no necessity, nor is there any machinery, for moving the Second Stage of a Bill in this House. Under our Standing Orders a Government Bill is automatically moved from the Chair. I have to do that. In doing that I am not usurping any of the duties or privileges of the Seanad; I am only carrying out literally and faithfully the directions given to me under the Standing Orders.
The Seanad adjourned at 11.30 a.m. until Tuesday, 10th May, at 3 p.m.