This motion seems to me to be clearly out of order as attempting to do something by Standing Order which is outside the scope of Standing Orders. Standing Orders are for the proper regulation of the business of the House. They are mere machinery applicable to all its business, but not identifiable with any one subject matter more than another. Consequently, I rule the motion out of order.
Public Business. - Use of the Irish Language—Motion.
The following motion stood in the name of Senator Blythe:—
That, in the Standing Orders of Seanad Eireann, after Standing Order No. 83 there be inserted a new Standing Order as follows:—
83a. It shall be in order to offer to any Bill an amendment to provide for the use of the Irish language in any document to be prepared or any business to be transacted under the terms of the Bill or of any statutory provisions to be amended by the Bill or to provide that a person appointed to any office to be created or regulated under the terms of the Bill shall have a competent knowledge of the Irish language.
I think that Standing Order means that the Chairman decides that the House cannot require a certain part of its business in a particular way, and I think that the whole question is one which might well be referred to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. I do not want to seem to do anything in the nature of censuring the Chair or anything like that, but I think there is a matter of considerable principle involved, and if it were not taken in the nature of a censure but as a means of getting the matter thoroughly thrashed out, I should like it to be done. I think it is a matter of considerable importance, because on the particular amendments that we moved the other day the Vice-Chairman would have ruled one way and the Chair another. I think it is desirable that we should arrive at some understanding. I should like to move that the matter be referred to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.
I wish to second the motion. It is a very technical matter. I was very much astonished by the ruling in the first instance. I am not going to argue the matter, but I remember long ago we passed some resolution amending the Railways Act and insisting that the names of stations should be put down in Irish. I do not say that these things exactly correspond; they are too technical to try to work out. The object of Senator Blythe's proposal is that the matter should be studied by the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. As he says, it is no reflection on the Chair; it is only a question of right and wrong.
It is quite in order to move this motion, but I should like to point out that I have examined the Standing Orders of other Parliaments and I cannot find any provision which makes it mandatory on the Chair to receive amendments of a particular type in regard to all business. I shall put the motion.
Before you put the motion, as a point of information, you have ruled that Senator Blythe's motion is not in order. Are we in order now in taking a motion on a resolution that has been ruled out of order?
The Senator is per fectly entitled under the Standing Order to make a motion, with or without notice, referring my ruling to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. He is perfectly in order in doing that.
May I suggest that that is not the best line of approach. Senator Blythe put forward certain amendments to a private Bill. Because of Standing Orders those amendments were ruled out. It appears to me it is a matter for consideration by the Committee which deals with Standing Orders whether a new Standing Order is desirable to effect the kind of object that Senator Blythe has in mind. I would suggest, without any reference to the present proposed new Standing Order, that the question as to whether a new Standing Order of any kind was desirable to deal with the kind of position that Senator Blythe desires to attain should be included. I was going to urge, if this matter had come into discussion, that the whole matter be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I think for the kind of amendment that Senator Blythe wanted to put forward that there should not be an absolute bar because as the thing stands neither the House nor the Chair would be allowed to discuss the kind of proposition that Senator Blythe wanted to bring forward. Surely we should not bar ourselves from taking action when we may desire to take it.
I quite see your point, but you must remember that Senator Blythe's motion suggests that in any Bill it should be mandatory on the Chair to accept a particular type of amendment. Standing Orders are for the regulation of the procedure of the House and if that is done the procedure of the House will be so determined that the regulation of business will be rendered extremely difficult.
I would have been quite prepared to accept Senator Johnson's amendment that this matter should be referred to the Committee which deals with Standing Orders for the purpose of having the thing thrashed out, because I recognise that it is difficult for an individual to draw up a Standing Order which does not go beyond what may be desirable. I am quite prepared, if the Seanad thinks it desirable, to raise the matter in that way by way of reference to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. However, I would think it is within the competence of the House to make such Standing Orders as it thinks fit. I would suggest it is going extremely far for the Chairman to hold that something is outside the range of Standing Orders and that a Standing Order cannot be made to that effect. That is what your ruling amounts to.
The Standing Orders of every House are intended to regulate the procedure of the House, and the Senator claims to be entitled to propose to insert a Standing Order which would make it mandatory on the Chair to accept a particular type of amendment as regards every Bill. I suggest that it would be very difficult to pursue but the Senator is perfectly entitled to move to refer it to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges under Rule 39.
Perhaps the Chair would find some better arrangement. If there is some better way, I think we would be ready to agree to it.
As a means of getting out of something like an impasse it is within the competence of the Chair in certain cases to accept amendments without notice. I wonder would the Chair accept an amendment to my proposal that the whole matter be referred to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.
What does the Senator mean by the whole matter?
The suggestion I have to make is that the question of Standing Orders should be referred to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.
I am quite prepared to accept that.
You have already ruled this out of order. I fail to see how a motion that has been ruled out of order can be referred for consideration to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. I would suggest to Senator Blythe that he bring in a motion on another date asking the Committee of Procedure and Privileges to consider the possibility of introducing a Standing Order somewhat along the lines he has suggested. I suggest that we ought to do our business according to the rules of order for the time being and that Senator Blythe would bring forward the motion along the lines suggested.
I am prepared to move along those lines, because although I strongly resent the ruling this evening, I do not wish now to say anything that would seem to involve a question of censure.
I take it, Senator, you are not moving your motion.
I will bring in another motion.
Motion not moved.
The House adjourned at 7 p.m. until Wednesday, 31st July, 1935.