I got an undertaking from the Minister yesterday that he would consider a point I raised and deal with it to-day, namely, whether he could provide that, in case of a dispute on Section 5 (1) (b), the county committee would have an opportunity of asking for an inquiry. I want also to refer at this stage to a general question. I am sorry the Minister is not available because I was going to congratulate him on his magnificent achievement in this House yesterday. Whether that achievement was due to the apparent conciliatory nature of his terms or whether it was due to what I might describe as his sweet and reasonable method of dealing with the Opposition I do not know but he achieved something in this House yesterday which was very much greater than what he succeeded in achieving in the other House. When this Bill came up for discussion in the Dáil Senators will see, if they refer to the Debates, Volume 92, No. 2, that Alderman Corish, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, was extremely definite that the powers contained in the Bill, particularly in Section 5, which is perhaps the whole embodiment of the principle of the Bill, were such as should not be asked for by a Minister, I find that Alderman Corish described the Bill as one "which has been shown to be absolutely autocratic in its tendency".
Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, 1943—Report and Fifth Stages.
On a point of order. As we are talking about the members of another House, should they not be given their title?
I apologise to the Seanad. I should have said Deputy Corish. The Deputy continuing said:—
"Above all committees, I think this is the one committee which should not be interfered with by the Minister.... Consequently I cannot see the necessity for a section of this kind."
The only reason I raise the matter on this stage is to congratulate the Minister for having achieved with two Labour Parties in this House what he was unable to achieve with one in the other House, because in the Dáil nine members of the Labour Party voted against the section but I think Senators on the benches on my right voted yesterday in favour of the section. It would be as well if this House took note of the inconsistency with which they approached the problem, and if the House would consider that inconsistency sometimes in regard to some of their other utterances.
I am surprised at the toleration of the Chair in this matter. We are speaking now about a Bill which is likely to become law, but Senator Sweetman wants to identify it with political Parties. Does the Senator not know that the Seanad is a non-political body? I do not know if I would be in order in following the Senator's example, but I want to say that he has a long way to go before he will understand the objects and aims of Labour. The Senator should bear in mind that this House is non-political and that we are not now dealing with Labour, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael——
That will be news to the country.
——or even with farmers. The Senator should try to confine himself to what is before the House and not with the attitude of certain people.
The Senator is entitled to comment on happenings that occurred on the Bill. As to the nature of the comment, that is another matter.
If a member of the Dáil says certain things that is no reason why we should be castigated in this House for our actions.
I congratulated the Minister. I did not castigate anyone.
Perhaps I ought to apologise to Senator Sweetman for not having mentioned this matter before the Report Stage was taken, but it is usual for a Minister to wait until a question has been raised before he addresses himself to it. In connection with the amendment to Section 5, which the Minister for Agriculture said he might consider, all I can say is that he has considered it, and decided that it would not be possible to put down an amendment which could be effective, and which would not completely stultify the purpose of the paragraph After all, I cannot see any form of words which would get over the constitutional difficulty, that the Minister is accountable to the Dáil for the reasonableness and normality of his actions. If, in a matter of this sort he should act contrary to reason or in any way abnormally, the place in which he can be called to account is in the representative Assembly to which he is responsible.