We will now proceed with the report of the Standing Committee on Standing Orders. It may be necessary to interrupt the progress of its consideration, but we can go on with it as far as conditions will permit. I would like to say to the Seanad, in considering this report, that these Standing Orders number 103 altogether. Most of them have already been approved of and adopted. A few are presented for the first time, and, while I do not in any way wish to curtail the discussion, I would suggest to the Seanad that, having regard to the fact that they have already been reviewed practically in the whole, no discussion should take place, except in reference to some matter of real importance, arising out of these new rules.
REPORT ON STANDING ORDERS.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I trust you will indicate to us what the new rules are — as we come to them.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I propose to do that, Senator Guinness. I shall read them out in chronological order, and, if no objection is raised, I shall pass on to the next.
Orders Nos. 1 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
16. Should the Cathaoirleach or presiding Senator desire to address the Seanad, except for the purpose of controlling the proceedings of the Seanad or ruling on points of order, he shall vacate the chair, and the Leas-Chathaoirleach or other Senator, as provided in Standing Order No. 3, shall preside in the interval.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No. 16 is new, in so far as it provides that in the event of the Chairman, or whoever may be presiding in his absence, wishing to intervene in the course of a debate, save for the purpose of regulating the proceedings, or ruling points of order, he shall vacate the chair, and that some other Senator shall preside in the interval.
Nos. 16 to 19, inclusive, agreed.
20. No Senator is entitled to speak twice upon the same motion or amendment, except to close a debate upon the original motion of which he was the proposer, even though the same be amended, or except in explanation of a material part of his speech, in which he may have been misconceived, and in the latter case he is not to introduce new matter. But a Senator is not precluded from speaking on an amendment by reason of his having spoken upon the original motion, or upon any other amendment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In regard to No. 20 I wish to say that it has not been very accurately drafted. What was in the mind of the Committee was this, that the Senator who moves a motion should have the right to close the debate upon that motion, and the question then that we considered was, that if that motion were made the subject matter of an amendment, this right of the Senator to a general reply be preserved, and it was for the purpose of preserving it that the words "even though the same be amended" were inserted. These words have rather the opposite effect, and I would recommend the Seanad to leave them out altogether. I do not think it is wise or right that the Senator who moves a motion, which has been amended, should have a general right of reply afterwards, because the amendment might have the effect of making the motion quite different to what he had wished, and he would be supporting a motion, as amended, of which he did not approve. I think if we preserve his right to a general reply, where the original motion stands unamended, we are giving him everything he needs, and if the Seanad would approve I would ask them to leave out the words, "‘even though the same be amended," and to adopt No. 20 with these words omitted.
I should like to point out that you have skipped one Order.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No; I have not skipped any.
You skipped No. 19.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I announced it.
No. 19:—No Senator shall read his speech.
I had intended speaking on it. I think it is rather an unnecessary order to put in here. There are occasions in the other House over the water where speeches are read from end to end. For instance, when Ministers have to make certain definite statements on matters of policy, and it is desirable that they should not make any slip in the particular words they use, speeches are read. In the Dáil the other day this question was raised, when one Deputy read a speech and the Chairman passed it by. He said he thought it would be more desirable that people should not read their speeches, but he did not actually rule it out of order. I suggest that this should have been put in a more general way, although I quite agree it would be undesirable if people continued to read long speeches. I remember they did so in the Dáil on one occasion. When the Treaty was being discussed there was a series of 70 or 80 speeches, one after the other, nearly all of which were read, and most of them were not, I think, made up by the people who read them, and everybody was very much bored. If that sort of thing were to happen it would be intolerable. I would like to leave it to the judgment of the Chairman whether these things should be done or passed over. I think this is more unnecessary in the Seanad than almost anywhere else because I do not think anybody has made a speech in the Seanad that lasted more than ten minutes. I would prefer if an amendment were put in, "subject to the decision of the Chairman."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As a matter of fact, in practice, that is really the way it works out, and has worked out in the British House of Parliament. There is a sort of general rule of etiquette that no member has a right to read his speech, but unless it becomes an abuse it is ignored by the House, and the attention of the Speaker is very seldom called to it. The illustration you gave shows that there are occasions when, undoubtedly, it is desirable that the speaker should be very careful in his utterances, and in those cases the House takes no notice of the fact that a member is reading from manuscript. I think if you leave this as it is you may, perhaps, trust to your Chairman to follow on the same line. Of course, if you wish to insert the words, "except at the discretion of the Chairman," I do not object, but the rule, as it stands, will be interpreted by me in the same spirit.
I am quite content whichever way it is.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it is better to have it as an affirmative principle on the Standing Orders, and it will, I think, work out quite satisfactorily in practice. As to No. 20, if the Seanad approves, I would suggest that some Senator move that the words, "even if the same be amended," be struck out.
I beg to move that they be struck out.
The point is, I take it, if a Senator's proposal is amended he loses his right to make a second speech?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No. He can speak on the amendment, but he loses his right to sum up the debate on the original motion.
Provided he can speak on the amendment before it is carried, I think that is all he has a right to ask for.
No. 20, as amended, agreed to.
No. 21:—"A motion shall not be debated until it has been seconded, but a seconder may reserve his speech till a later stage of the debate."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps I should take this opportunity of expressing my regret to Senator Yeats that I some time ago ruled him out of order when he wished to avail himself of the provisions of this Standing Order. The mistake was mine, and not his.
No. 21 agreed.
No. 22:— Every amendment must be relevant to the motion on which it is proposed, and must be directed to omitting, adding, or substituting words. No amendment shall be accepted by the Cathaoirleach which is equivalent to a direct negative; provided that nothing in these Orders shall prejudice the right of any Senator to move that further consideration of the motion be postponed sine die or for a definite period, or that the Seanad proceed to the next business.
Is there any particular reason why a person should not move a direct negative?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We make provision for that, you will see, later on in a new rule. We make an important provision to which I will call your attention when we come to it.
No. 22 agreed.
Nos. 23 to 30, inclusive, agreed.
No. 31:— When the motion "That the question be now put," has been carried, and the question consequent thereon has been decided, any further motion may at once be made which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair; and also, if a section of a Bill be then under consideration, a motion may be made, “That the question ‘That certain words of the section defined in the motion stand part of the section,’” or “‘That the section stand part of or be added to the Bill’ be now put.” Such motions shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.
I beg to move an amendment to add at the end of the Order the words, "After the mover of the original motion has been afforded an opportunity of replying as provided in Standing Order No. 20."
I do not think there is anything contentious in that. I think the Seanad will agree that the proposer of the motion, after it has been criticised, has the right to reply, and the Standing Orders are calculated to deny him that right, unless these words are put at the end of this rule in the Standing Orders. It happened about a fortnight ago in connection with an important matter that one of the Senators who moved it was very nearly being denied the right of replying to criticisms on his motion. I do not think any of us here desire that should occur again.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps you will develop it further? You propose to put in these words at the end?
Yes. When it is moved: "That the question be now put," I want to ensure that the mover of the motion will have the right to reply before the question is actually put.
I would like to support it. I think it applies to cases where the motion is before the Seanad, for a certain time, and there is a motion which is accepted. "That the question be now put." That, of course, has to be put without discussion or amendment, and, when it is carried, the object of this amendment is that before the original motion is put the mover of it shall have the right to reply to the arguments advanced against it. I think that is only fair, for you will realise that if a motion is before the Seanad, a very eloquent and persuasive speaker may just have addressed the Seanad. Somebody thinking with him may see an advantage in moving "That the question be now put," when the Seanad is under the influence of that particular speech, and if the motion is carried, under the Standing Orders as they are, I think the original mover would have no right of reply to any of the speeches made. This amendment is calculated to give him that right, and for that reason I think, in the interests of debate and fair discussion, it is one the Seanad generally can accept.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Would it not be better to put it in this way: "Subject to a right of the mover of the original motion to reply, such motion shall be put forthwith."
Yes; that is the same thing.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think that would be plainer.
The Senator has raised the question of enforcing the closure. That is what it comes to. I think the danger he anticipates will not arise. I sympathise with his ideas. The putting of the closure is more or less at the discretion of the Chairman, and he certainly would not be inclined to put the closure. The putting of the closure is more or less in the Chairman's discretion, and he would not put it if, in his opinion, the debate had not been fully exhausted.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think, Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde, that covers the point of Senator McPartlin's case.
Under the Standing Orders you are bound to put the motion at that particular period.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The motion will have to be put, when that period has arrived. I do not think this motion can possibly do any harm, and it will carry out the spirit of the proposed Standing Order.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
No. 31, as amended, agreed.
No. 32.—When a Bill is being considered in Committee of the whole Seanad, or is to be so considered, the Seanad may, by Resolution, specify the time which shall be given to the consideration of any section or group of sections. When the time so allotted shall have expired, if such section or group of sections has not already been voted on, the Cathaoirleach shall, without further motion or discussion, put to the Seanad the amendment under discussion and any other amendment, which the Seanad, on a show of hands, without discussion, decides shall be so put. When all amendments have been so disposed of, the Cathaoirleach shall put the section or sections concerned to the Seanad.
I should like to point out that No. 72 appears to clash with this. It is stated in No. 72, "A Bill which has passed its Second Reading shall be referred to a Committee for detailed consideration, or shall be so considered by the Seanad sitting in Committee." In the Committee Stage a Bill must be voted on section by section and not as a whole," whereas here it says "Sections and groups of Sections can be put together and voted on as a whole." The two do not seem to agree.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is only by virtue of a resolution. Section 72 deals with the general practice, and Section 32 enables an exception, if by resolution the Seanad agrees to it, that certain Sections be taken together. It would be quite clear if in 72 you said "subject to the provisions of 32."
Rule 32 agreed to.