Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 May 1933

Vol. 16 No. 17

Public Business. - Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1932, and Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1933. Messages from the Dáil.

The following appeared on the Order Paper:—
Teachtaireacht ón nDáil (dar dáta 3º Bealtaine, 1933).
Do rith Dáil Eireann an Rún so leanas an lá so:—
Toisc an Bille Bunreachta (Móid do Chur ar Ceal), 1932 do chur go dtí Seanad Eireann an 1º lá de Mhárta, 1933, do réir Rúin do rith an Tigh seo an lá san fé Airtiogal 38A den Bhunreacht, agus toisc an tréimhse do thrí fichid lá luaidhtear san Airtiogal san do bheith caithte ó cuireadh an Bille sin amhlaidh go dtí Seanad Eireann, deintear, leis seo, a bheartú le Rún, go dtuigfear, ós rud é nár rith Seanad Eireann an Bille sin laistigh den tréimhse sin de thrí fichid lá, an Bille sin do bheith rithte ag dhá Thigh an Oireachtais i gcoinn an trí fichid lá san sa bhfuirm inar cuireadh é amhlaidh go dtí Seanad Eireann an 1º lá de Mhárta, 1933.
Message from the Dáil (dated 3rd May, 1933).
Dáil Eireann this day passed the following Resolution:—
The Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1932, having been sent on the 1st day of March, 1933 to Seanad Eireann, in pursuance of a Resolution of this House passed on that day under Article 38A of the Constitution, and the period of sixty days mentioned in that Article having elapsed since the said Bill was so sent to Seanad Eireann, it is hereby resolved that, as Seanad Eireann did not pass the said Bill within the said period of sixty days, the said Bill be deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas at the expiration of the said sixty days in the form in which it was so sent to Seanad Eireann on the 1st day of March, 1933.
Teachtaireacht ón nDáil (dar dáta 27º Abrán, 1933).
Tá Dáil Eireann tar éis aontú leis na Leasuithe 1 go 6 go huile, 8 go 15 go huile, 17 go 20 go huile, 31 go 34 go huile, 36, agus 39 go 44 go huile, do rinne Seanad Eireann ar an mBille Tora Talmhaíochta (Arbhar), 1933; tá sí tar éis diúltú do sna Leasuithe 7, 16, 21 go 30 go huile, 35, 37 agus 38; le n-ar mian léi aontú Sheanad Eireann d'fháil.
Message from the Dáil (dated 27th April, 1933).
Dáil Eireann has agreed to amendments 1 to 6 inclusive, 8 to 15 inclusive, 17 to 20 inclusive, 31 to 34 inclusive, 36, and 39 to 44 inclusive, made by Seanad Eireann to the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1933; it has disagreed to amendments 7, 16, 21 to 30 inclusive, 35, 37 and 38; to which the agreement of Seanad Eireann is desired.
Teachtaireacht ón nDáil (dar dáta 3º Bealtaine, 1933).
Do rith Dáil Eireann an Rún so leanas an lá so:—
Toisc an Bille Tora Talmhaíochta (Arbhar), 1932 do chur go dtí Seanad Eireann an 1º lá de Mhárta, 1933, do réir Rúin do rith an Tigh seo an lá san fé Airtiogal 38A den Bhunreacht, agus toisc an tréimhse de thrí fichid lá luaidhtear san Airtiogal san do bheith caithte ó cuireadh an Bille sin amhlaidh go dtí Seanad Eireann, deintear, leis seo, a bheartú le Rún, go dtuigfear, ós rud é nár rith Seanad Eireann an Bille sin laistigh den tréimhse sin de thrí fichid lá gan leasú nó gan aon leasuithe air ach na cinn le n-a n-aontuíonn an Tigh seo, ach ina ionad san gur ritheadar an Bille sin laistigh den tréimhse sin go leasuithe air ná haontuíonn an Tigh seo le cuid acu, go dtuigfear an Bille sin do bheith rithte ag dhá Thigh an Oireachtais i gcionn an trí fichid lá san sa bhfuirm inar cuireadh é amhlaidh go dtí Seanad Eireann an 1º lá de Mhárta, 1933, go sna leasuithe air atá leagtha amach sa Sceideal a ghabhann leis an Rún so, leasuithe do rinne Seanad Eireann ar an mBille sin agus le n-ar aontuigh an Tigh seo.
Message from the Dáil (dated 3rd May, 1933).
Dáil Eireann this day passed the following Resolution:—
The Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1932 having been sent on the 1st day of March, 1933 to Seanad Eireann, in pursuance of a Resolution of this House passed on that day under Article 38A of the Constitution, and the period of sixty days mentioned in that Article having elapsed since the said Bill was so sent to Seanad Eireann, it is hereby resolved that, as Seanad Eireann did not pass the said Bill within the said period of sixty days without amendment or with such amendments only as are agreed to by this House but on the contrary passed the said Bill within the said period with amendments of which some are not agreed to by this House, the said Bill be deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas at the expiration of the said sixty days in the form in which it was so sent to Seanad Eireann on the 1st day of March, 1933, with the amendments set forth in the Schedule to this Resolution, which were made in the said Bill by Seanad Eireann and agreed to by this House.
SCHEDULE.
1. Section 3. The word "and" deleted in line 11 and the words "and maize germ meal" added at the end of the section.
2. Section 3. The following words added at the end of the section:—"the word 'grinding' includes crushing, breaking, kibbling, flaking and rolling."
3. Section 7, sub-section (1). Subparagraph (c) deleted.
4. Section 7, sub-section (1). All after the word "condition" in line 49 deleted down to the end of the sub-section.
5. Section 7, sub-section (3). The sub-section deleted.
6. Section 8, sub-section (1). After the word "stuff" in line 11 the words "or medicine" inserted.
7. Section 47, sub-section (1). After the word "on" in line 27 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
8. Section 47, sub-section (1). After the word "on" in line 31 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
9. Section 47, sub-section (3). After the word "on" in line 36 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
10. Section 47, sub-section (3). After the word "on" in line 39 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
11. Section 47, sub-section (4). After the word "on" in line 40 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
12. Section 47, sub-section (4). After the word "on" in line 43 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
13. Section 47, sub-section (6). After the word "on" in line 50 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
14. Section 47, sub-section (6). After the word "on" in line 53 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
15. Section 47, sub-section (7). After the word "on" in line 54 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
16. Section 47, sub-section (7). After the word "on" in line 57 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
17. Section 47, sub-section (8). After the word "on" in line 58 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
18. Section 47, sub-section (8). After the word "on" in line 62 the words "or proposes to carry on" inserted.
19. Section 61, sub-section (1). The words "or cancel" deleted in lines 54-55.
20. Section 61, sub-section (2). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—
"(2) The appropriate Minister shall cancel the registration of any person in any register kept by him upon the application of such person or, in the case of an individual, his personal representative or, in the case of a body corporate, the liquidator."
21. Section 68, sub-section (1). The figures "1932" deleted in line 19 and the figures "1933" substituted therefor.
22. Section 80, sub-section (1). The words "under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister" deleted in lines 56-57 and the following words substituted therefor: —"such maize is sold under and in accordance with a licence granted to him by the Minister and is so sold to a person to whom a licence to purchase maize has been granted by the Minister."
23. Section 81, sub-section (1). The words "forms part of a maize meal mixture" deleted in line 23 and the following words substituted therefor: —"(being the entire product of grinding maize) forms part of a maize meal mixture or of a compound feeding stuff one of the component parts of which is a maize meal mixture."
24. New section. Before Section 82 a new section inserted as follows:—
"82.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any registered maize miller to sell or offer for sale any maize meal mixture unless such maize meal mixture complies with the following specifications, that is to say:—
(a) oats (if any) included therein is, if an order under sub-section (3) of this section is not then in force, in one or other of the following forms, that is to say, the entire product derived from grinding oats or the entire product derived from grinding the kernels only of oats, or, if any such order is then in force, in the form required by such order;
(b) the amount by weight of oats (if any) included therein in the form of the entire product derived from grinding oats does not exceed the prescribed percentage of such maize meal mixture;
(c) in case such maize meal mixture does not include any oats or includes any oats in the form of the entire product derived from grinding oats, the amount by weight of the product derived from grinding maize included therein does not exceed the prescribed percentage of such maize meal mixture;
(d) in case such maize meal mixture includes any oats in the form of the entire product derived from grinding the kernels only of oats, the amount by weight of the product derived from grinding maize included therein does not exceed the appropriate prescribed percentage of such maize meal mixture.
(2) The Minister in making regulations in relation to the percentage referred to in paragraph (d) of the immediately preceding sub-section as prescribed shall, by reference to the quantity of oats contained in maize meal mixtures to which the said paragraph (d) applies divide such maize meal mixtures into such and so many classes as he may think proper, and shall prescribe different percentages in respect of different classes, and the percentage so prescribed in respect of any such class shall for the purposes of the said paragraph (d) be the appropriate prescribed percentage in relation to every maize meal mixture which belongs to such class.
(3) The Minister may from time to time by order require any oats included in a maize meal mixture to be in the form of the entire product derived from grinding the kernels only of oats.
(4) The Minister may by order revoke any order previously made by him under the immediately preceding sub-section.
(5) If any registered maize miller acts in contravention of this section such registered maize miller shall be guilty of an offence under this section and be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part I of the Schedule to this Act."
25. Section 83, sub-section (1). After the word "percentage" in line 46 the words "(if any)" inserted.
26. Section 83, sub-section (2). After the word "percentage" in line 49 the words "(if any)" inserted.
27. Section 90, sub-section (1). After the word "substance" in line 28 the words "(other than an excepted article)" inserted.
28. Section 90. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—"(4) Each of the articles specified in sub-paragraphs (b) to (w), both inclusive, of paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule to this Act shall be an excepted article for the purposes of this section, but if the Minister makes an order declaring that any of the said articles shall be a scheduled feeding stuff for the purposes of this Part of this Act, the article to which such order relates shall cease to be an excepted article for the purposes of this section."
29. Section 91, sub-section (2). After the word "feeding-stuff" in line 4 the words "or any substance used in the preparation of any scheduled feeding stuff" inserted.

Cathaoirleach

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——

Cathaoirleach

I cannot allow any Senator to make any speech.

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

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid not.

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

Cathaoirleach

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.

Barr
Roinn