Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

While I acknowledge the intention behind amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and the Deputy's sincerity in putting them forward, there would be considerable practical difficulties in putting them into effect.

In regard to amendment No. 1, section 2 contains the definition of the Houses of the Oireachtas Service with its title in both the English and Irish language. This presentation is consistent with normal drafting practice in terms of the alphabetical listing of definitions. This format makes for ease of reference to legislation for all users. This order of precedence also fits in with the common usage of the term "Houses of the Oireachtas" of which we in this House form a part. The Irish language title, however, will receive due recognition and prominence on all letterheads, stationary, etc.

The amendment proposes to reverse the linguistic order in section 2 by putting the Irish language title before the English language title and I do not believe this change, which could have serious implications for individuals seeking access to the legislation, is the appropriate way to achieve the objective of giving greater prominence and usage to the Irish language. In the circumstances, I do not believe we should become overly prescriptive about titles or the precedence to be given to them and, accordingly, I do not propose to accept this amendment.

Regarding amendment No. 2, the terms "Cathaoirleach" and "Leas-Chathaoirleach" are already in use in the Seanad. The thinking is that this would lead to unavoidable confusion between these titles and the title of the chairman of the commission, who is the Ceann Comhairle, if they were applied routinely to officers of the commission, particularly as the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad is an ex officio member of the commission. The amendment would require Irish language titles to be used as far as possible in respect of officers of the commission but the practice is that the relevant titles are most likely to be used within the context of meetings of the commission in any event and given its nature, composition and functions, it is conceivable that its deliberations need not be conducted with the level of formality which would require regular usage of such titles.

It is normal practice for committees and commissions to establish their own internal procedures and we should not seek to dictate or be overly prescriptive to the individuals concerned in terms of how to address each other in that particular format. I do not propose to accept the amendments.

See this speech in context