Tairgim:—
Go nglacfar le Tuarascáil an Choiste um Nós Imeachta agus Príbhléidí (T. 116).
That the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges (T. 116) be adopted.
Report of Committee on Procedure and Privileges Re Wearing of Gown by Ceann Comhairle.
Ná fuil aon nídh le rá ag an Rúnaí Pairliminte i dtaobh na Tuarascála?
Bhí an ceist seo i dtaobh túinigh do sholáthar don Cheann Comhairle fé bhreithniú ar feadh tamaill mhaith ag an gCiste um Nós Imeachta agus Príbhléidí agus do bheartaigh an Ciste an ceist do chur fé bhráid na Dála. Do bhreithnigh an Coiste chomh maith ar chóir go gcaithfeadh an Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Cléireach na Dála agus an Fo-Chléireach túinigh. Bheartaigh an Ciste gan a mholadh go gcaithfeadh an Cléireach agus an Fo-Chléireach túinigh, ach mór deineadh aon tsocrú maidir le túineach don Leas-Cheann Comhairle, i slí is go mbeadh caoi ag an Dáil a tuairimí fén gceist sin do chur in iúl dúinn.
This matter of providing the Ceann Comhairle with a gown has been under consideration for a good while by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and it has been decided to bring it before the Dáil now for its consent. A question also arose as to whether it would be advisable to provide a gown for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk. It was decided not to recommend that gowns be worn by the Clerk and Assistant Clerk of the Dáil, but the question of providing a gown for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was left in abeyance, so that if the House has any opinion to express in that regard we would like to hear it.
Will you be able to provide the material?
Are there coupons?
If I am in order I should like to say that the proposal in the Report should be extended to the other officers. Everybody agrees with the proposal in regard to the Ceann Comhairle. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has to occupy the Chair for a considerable time in the ordinary way, and it would look incongrous to visitors to the House to find that while the Speaker had a gown the man substituted for him was in ordinary attire. I think whoever is in control of discussions in the Chamber ought to be robed if we are to have occupants of the Chair robed at all. We could not explain why one man was robed and the other was not. I could understand members of the Committee deciding that temporary occupants need not be robed.
Why?
In order to give effect to the proposal of the Committee, the material wherever it will be sought, should be procedure in order to have a robe for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Has the Deputy considered what would happen if Deputy O'Neill's gown were put on Deputy O'Reilly? Deputy O'Reilly would vanish.
At the Committee on Procedure and Privileges I supported the view that no matter who was in the Chair, if the Ceann Comhairle was to be gowned, that rule should be carried out generally. There might be some distinction made in the gowns. I approve of the Ceann Comhairle being robed, but there is no use in having the occupant of the Chair wearing a robe for a couple of hours, if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not wear one.
I agree with the last two Deputies. I think it is the office is being invested with the dignity of a gown, and not the particular occupant. When the Ceann Comhairle leaves the Chair whoever occupies it is invested with his powers, and to all intends and purposes is the Speaker for the time being. Considerable argument could be advanced on the lines of having the temporary occupant of the Chair wearing a gown.
As far as this Party is concerned we consider that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should be robed, because it is the occupant of the Chair we are honouring. So far as supplying the material is concerned we think the Department concerned should be required to do so.
The matter has been carefully reviewed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The position of Ceann Comhairle in this House is a unique one, and a very exceptional one. It is well to recall that to mind. The Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Frank Fahy, came into this House as a partisan politician, elected by Fianna Fáil in a hotly contested election. Deputy Frank Fahy sat in this House as a strenuous controversial politician, taking an active part in the debates in the House. Then he was chosen as Ceann Comhairle and his whole status in this House changed. He became at once the trusted custodian, not only of the rights of the Government Party, but more especially of the rights of the Opposition Parties, and Independent Deputies.
I speak of this with some background in the matter because we have modelled our procedure here very largely on the procedure which has gradually grown up by custom in the British House of Commons and which most Parliaments of the world have taken as their example. Up to 1881 the Speaker of the British House of Commons could not leave the Chair so long as the House was in session. I think a reference to the records will show that it was my father, who was then a member of the British House of Commons, who directed the attention of the House to the manifest impracticability and unreasonableness of that arrangement. It was at his instance that the system of Deputy Chairman was instituted in Parliament. But Parliament consented to that departure with profound reluctance because they were conscious of the fact that to allow anybody else to occupy the Speaker's Chair might very easily confuse the minds of members of the House of Commons as to the unique regard in which the occupant of that position should be held by all sides of the House. There has been in the British House of Commons always a Chairman of Committees. He never sat in the Speaker's Chair; he sat in the Chair below the Speaker's Chair. He never mounted the dais and actually went into the Speaker's Chair. Our practice has been that whoever acts as deputy occupies the Chair ordinarily occupied by the Ceann Comhairle. I think — albeit subconsciously — the motive in proposing to give a special gown to the Ceann Comhairle is more or less for the purpose of establishing the unique position that the Ceann Comhairle holds. He should be the only officer of the House wearing that distinctive dress to demonstrate that he is impartially accepted by all sides of the House as the representative of us all in Parliament, just as in the old days no one was allowed to occupy the Speaker's Chair but the Speaker himself.
I think on this occasion, when we seek to give some exterior mark to the unique position occupied by the Ceann Comhairle and the unique attitude of all Deputies on every side of the House to that position, we would lose by putting gowns on everybody and, therefore, I am strongly in favour, firstly, in the determining of some kind of gown analogous possibly to that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the United States of America; secondly, in confining it absolutely to the Ceann Comhairle's person and to his alone, so that no other person in this country —President, Chief Justice or anybody else—would have a comparable mark of distinction to wear in the presence of the people; and, thirdly, the point I want to make to the House—and I think it is of very real importance— a great many young Parliaments have fallen into what is for me the grievous error of slavishly aping all the traditions of the House of Commons.
Now, it would be fatuous and idiotic for us to put wigs and gowns on the Clerk of this House because there is no historical precedent for it and no historical explanation of it. The reason why officers of the House of Commons are wigged and gowned is that originally they were associated with the Bar and they came into the House of Commons wearing the distinctive raiment of their profession. Gradually, as usage ceased to impose on these officers the necessity of being members of the Bar, this office had been so long occupied by members of the Bar that the attire had come to be associated with the office of Clerk of the House of Commons, and so they continued to wear that dress just as you have officers of the Black Rod. Surely, no one would suggest that we should put Captain Byrne into knee breeches. We very sensibly chose an attire for him which was suitable and becoming and in complete harmony with our own institutions. The officer discharging equivalent responsibilities in the House of Commons goes about in velvet knee breeches and wears a long sword and he is called the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. There is an historical explanation for that and to change it would be to break with tradition—a tradition steeped in interest and full of history. Let us not, however, contemplate these accidental features of the House of Commons and seek to import them in here without any reference to their association with the institutions we have here.
While gladly acknowledging the source of our Parliamentary institutions to be that of the House of Commons, as every Parliamentary democracy must—and while gladly acknowledging that the House of Commons was right in giving to its Speaker a unique place, not only in their own midst but in the whole community, I agree that we should confer upon our Ceann Comhairle some outward mark of the unique relationship he has with all the Deputies of the House, but we should stop there. If we go further we rob the mark, which we seek to confer, of its unique character and it becomes virtually meaningless. Given a gown on the Ceann Comhairle's person I think all who see it will understand. Giving gowns to half the staff of the House will mean that most persons will say it is a waste of cloth and a poor imitation of the original.
I agree with Deputy Dillon that this is a matter of some significance. I do not think, however, that anybody suggested that half the staff of Leinster House should be provided with gowns. I differ very strongly from Deputy Dillon in his suggestion that the Ceann Comhairle is placed in a unique position and that we should suggest, not only for this House but to other people that the Ceann Comhairle and the Ceann Comhairle alone has the right to exercise authority in this House.
Everybody else is his deputy.
Mr. Morrissey
Everybody else is his deputy, with one exception; the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has the right to exercise every power, when sitting in the Chair, that the Ceann Comhairle exercises.
But only as his deputy.
Mr. Morrissey
It may be only as his deputy. But, so far as I know, in actual practice there is only one power exercised by the Ceann Comhairle from the Chair which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has no power to exercise. That is the right to accept a motion to name a Deputy.
And closure.
Mr. Morrissey
Closure, yes. The other is the one to which I always take most exception because to me it seems like asking somebody else to hit the person who hit you. In any case the whole purpose of all this is to secure the utmost respect for the Chair. Our practice here, since the establishment of this House, has been that, roughly speaking, the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle sit in the Chair for equal periods. Are we going to suggest now that, under our rules of procedure and the discipline of this House, there is to be less regard shown to those when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is sitting in the Chair rather than when the Ceann Comhairle is sitting in the Chair? Are we suggesting that he has not the powers of the Ceann Comhairle to control members? I do not feel very strongly one way or the other about this question of the gown, but I do feel, if we are to have continuity of authority, that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should certainly have a gown if the Ceann Comhairle is to have one. I do not think that anyone suggests that there should be gowns for half of the staff of the House. I think that the other matter of the Ceann Comhairle being the sole custodian of the rights and privileges and orders of the House might be carried a bit too far.
We are deeply indebted to Deputy Dillon for his statement and his effort to lift this matter out of that vein of humour with which we were inclined to start the consideration of this motion. I have recollections of showing some thousands of visitors around the Mansion House where there is a painting of Foster, the last Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. In that painting he is wearing a gown somewhat similar to that which the Taoiseach wears as Chancellor of the National University. I am of the opinion that the Ceann Comhairle should wear, if not Foster's gown, at least something similar to it, because the painting in the Mansion House, which I used to point to with great pride, had under Foster's name words to this effect: "Foster, Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, defender and asserter of the rights of the Irish people." It is some ten years ago since I showed visitors around there, but I felt great pride and distinction in showing visitors from all parts of the world that Ireland had its Parliament at that time and that this was the great Speaker who defended its rights. I can well imagine this House being full of English and other foreign distinguished visitors and if the Ceann Comhairle was wearing a gown similar to that of Foster's we could point to him and say: "That gown is similar to that which was worn by the defender of the rights of the Irish people before the Act of Union."
I appeal to the House to make sure that Ireland's historic associations will be recalled by any gown that the Ceann Comhairle wears. I do not know whether there are any remnants of Foster's gown left but, if there are, they should be displayed here so that we could point them out to visitors to show that we had our independence at one time and that we hope some day to see the Ceann Comhairle presiding, as Foster did, over a thirty-two county Parliament. I earnestly hope that the day will come when the gown of the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons will be introduced into this House so as to let the world know of our historical associations.
I think it is very significant and very satisfactory that there is no opposition being voiced to this proposal to provide the Ceann Comhairle with robes of office. It is only a very short time since there was a tendency in this country to play up to the meaner instincts of our people and deride everything in the way of ceremonial dress, whether the top hat, the tail coat, or anything else. The nation has, I think, departed from that low standard of public outlook, and it is a welcome departure. I fully agree with the statement of Deputy Dillon that the Ceann Comhairle occupies a unique position, a position which is much higher in status and much more important in function than that of his deputy. At the same time, it must be recognised that while as deputy he is presiding over this House he occupies the position of Chairman, and I think is entitled to a distinctive robe, not exactly the same type of robe as the Ceann Comhairle, but at any rate a robe distinctive from that of members of the House. I think it is ordinary common sense. I think the fact that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle wears a robe will not take anything from the dignity or importance of the position of the Ceann Comhairle. Therefore, I think there is a sound reason why the suggestion should be adopted that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should also be robed.
I am also in complete agreement that robes should not be distributed broadcast to other members of the House. If the occupant of the position of Clerk or other official of the House were to be provided with a robe there might be an appeal to have Ministers robed and we would then be coming up against the very difficult problem of providing the particular type of robe that each Minister should wear. It might be suggested that the Minister for Agriculture should wear something distinctive of agriculture, and the Minister for Defence some sort of battledress, and so on. I do not think this proposal should be carried further than that the person who occupies the Chair of the House should wear a definitely distinctive dress.
The trouble appears to be to bring the matter definitely to a decision. The proposal is to adopt the report of the Committee. So far as the first paragraph of the report is concerned, it seems to have practically the unanimous support of the House. As to the other part of it, with reference to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there does not seem to be the same measure of agreement. I do not know what is the best way to deal with it from the point of view of order; whether we should propose to refer it back for further consideration or whether, as there seems to be unanimity, we should accept the proposal that the Ceann Comhairle should wear a gown and refer back the question of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for further consideration.
Deputies
"Agreed."
What is agreed to?
This being the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the House seems to be agreed with regard to the Ceann Comhairle and that the other question should be referred back to the Committee, having heard the views of different Deputies on that matter. The report is agreed to on the understanding that the Committee will reconsider the matter of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Agreed.