Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 1949

Vol. 36 No. 9

The Legislative Programme—Motion.

Professor Fearon

I move:—

That this House is of the opinion that the Government should at the commencement of each session indicate to the Oireachtas the legislative programme contemplated for the session.

In moving this motion, I should like to say that I regard it as an entirely non-Party motion and almost more of a social than a political motion. It embodies a desire I have had in my mind for some years and only now do I see an opportunity of bringing it to the notice of the House and inviting the attention and assistance of my colleagues. The first difficulty I found was in the matter of the wording. There are two things behind this motion. The motion is worded: "That this House is of the opinion that the Government should at the commencement of each session..." Strictly, I would sooner have put "at the opening of the Parliamentary year", but that would have meant that I would have had to define "Parliamentary year". If the House will allow me to regard "session" as meaning "Parliamentary year", and "Parliamentary year" as meaning: the 12 months following the annual reassembling of the Oireachtas in the autumn—it will make the position a little easier for me.

In connection with the word "opening," the idea at the back of my mind is that we should have a formal State opening of this House at the start of every Parliamentary year. I have attended five opening meetings, autumnal meetings, of the Oireachtas and I have always felt a little disappointed that they were somewhat informal. I believe that this is a very important institution, the most important secular House in the country and one of the Parliaments of Europe. We might have a more ceremonial start in the autumn. One reason for that is that our zeal for democracy may tend to take a certain amount of the colour and brightness out of life, and what I really would like to see is the President coming with an escort, being met by a guard of honour and received by this Chamber and giving us a message like the three leaves of our shamrock: charity to all men, faith in the present, and hope for the future. I could not with any propriety phrase that as a motion before this Chamber —who am I, as a private member of this House, to make suggestions as to what the President should do?—nor could I present it to the Government without knowing what this Chamber felt about it, but I should be very grateful to have it discussed. In the past, it would have been somewhat difficult to do during the emergency period, but now I feel, in view of the very considerable legislative changes of the past year, that we have an opportunity to seek a more ceremonial opening of our session.

As to how that has been worked into the motion, I thought the message of the President might very well be made the occasion for another thing which I felt would be desirable, that is, that, either in the Message or in the adoption of the Message by the Government representative in the Chamber, we might have some indication of the Government programme for the ensuing Parliamentary year. We know that if we look too far ahead, we fall over what is at our feet, and, on the other hand, if we look at the ground all the time, we do not see where we are going. If we were enabled to lift up our eyes and to see the hills and obstacles which we have to face and the road we are going to traverse, it would be a very great help indeed. I do not seek to tie the hands of the Government, to commit them to a particular programme, a particular line of policy, or anything of that sort, but I believe they could give us a perspective. That, I think, is of particular importance at present in view of the very wide issues we are facing— national issues, like social welfare on a very large scale, and international issues. If we knew that we were going to discuss these things at a certain time of the year, we would be better prepared. From my own limited experience, the Seanad would profit enormously by a blueprint for the Parliamentary year, so far as such a thing is possible. It would prevent our work being bunched together, with long intervals, and would give us a chance of spacing out the work and of discussing important and relevant matters at a time when there was not such great pressure of work.

These, then, are the two arguments I put forward in support of this motion. I am not a believer in long speeches. I have avoided the phrase "Parliamentary year" because I do not see how it can be defined properly without getting into all sorts of difficulties about chopping legislation into time units, but I suggest that the House allow me to read "session" as meaning "Parliamentary year" in this particular case. With these two arguments, I very respectfully submit this motion for the consideration of the Seanad.

Professor O'Brien

I formally second.

Mr. M. Hayes

This motion raises certain points of interest in respect of which some of us have found difficulty over rather a long period. The Senator desires two separate things, apparently: (1) that we should open Parliament with more ceremony, and (2) that we should be given beforehand an idea of the legislative programme. That we should have more ceremony is quite within the power of the Government. It is quite possible, and I agree entirely with Senator Fearon that it is desirable that we should have more ceremony, but I think we should be very careful in the development of ceremony of that kind. We cannot adopt ceremony from other places and we must allow something in the way of a native ceremonial to grow up. That, of course, offers very considerable difficulties, because all secular ceremony in this country was associated with an occupying Power with which a great many of us naturally did not agree. But we should not allow the fact that we did not agree with it to blind us to the advantage of ceremony in secular matters.

I think the Senator has made a case for a ceremonial opening of Parliament; that when a new Parliament comes into being it should be opened with greater ceremony and, less, so to speak, casualness, than has hitherto been observed. There are various reasons for the present situation. One of them obviously is the beginning of the Parliament in 1922 and the other is the desire to avoid the kind of ceremony which was associated with the British occupation. I suggest that we should have more ceremony with regard to the opening of Parliament, that is, the opening of the Oireachtas, and, perhaps, as the Senator has said, an address to the members of both Houses.

The second thing the Senator asks for, however, while it may possibly be desirable, is something of much greater difficulty. He asks that the Government should, at the commencement of each session, indicate to the Oireachtas the legislative programme contemplated for the session. The word "session" in Great Britain has a technical meaning and Parliament is opened and concluded at the end of a session and business which is not concluded in each session is killed. For a number of reasons, including, I think, if I may say so, simple ignorance on our own part as to what a session might be, we did not adopt that particular scheme for having Parliamentary sessions and I think it is desirable that we should not adopt it. The system which did grow up of allowing us to consider the whole life of a Parliament as one session is a system which has proved useful from the point of view of legislation. For example, Governments have adopted commonly the plan, when adjourning for a long time until autumn, of announcing a number of First Readings, not with the certainty that the Bills will be circulated but in the hope that the Bills will be circulated by the autumn. If they are so circulated, they can be taken early in the autumn session, using the word "session" in a loose fashion. That, I think, has proved an advantage for the working of Parliament and I agree with Senator Fearon that it would not be desirable to define the word "session" more tightly than it has been heretofore.

With regard to the Government announcing its business, I do not know whether the Senator means that something in the nature of a King's speech or something in the nature of the message of the President of the United States to Congress should be adopted and that in the Dáil there should be a general discussion on it. That is not quite the thing for us, but, if I might be allowed to express an opinion, I have never seen much advantage in what one might call a general discussion lasting over a week. General discussions do not seem to me to be of very great advantage. It would not be very easy to declare one's legislative programme and to be sure that one could adhere to what one had said at the beginning of the session.

I speak now exactly like Senator Fearon, merely as a member of the Seanad who is interested in this matter, and not as referring to any particular Government. Members of the House who have been here for some time have heard me declare often enough that Ministers and heads of Governments are very much alike, no matter what their Parliamentary programme was before they got in and no matter what the name of their political Party is. There are certain enduring and unchanging qualities in Ministers, but, while that is true, there are some very real difficulties in the position of Governments. For example, a declaration of business made last October could scarcely have included a Transport Bill, but it is quite obvious now, I think, speaking entirely without any special knowledge, that we are going to have a Transport Bill and that it is going to be an important Bill.

Mr. Hearne

You knew that last March.

Mr. M. Hayes

We did not know it last March.

Mr. Hearne

You knew last March that Córas Iompair Eireann was in a parlous state.

Mr. M. Hayes

Yes, but it would not have been easy to frame a message from the President to the Oireachtas in October to say that, owing to the parlous condition of Córas Iompair Eireann, it is probable that the Government will have to introduce a Transport Bill. That would not have been quite so simple. One would have to indicate something more concrete than that kind of general proposition. However, another of the advantages that Senator Fearon thinks would accrue from declaring your Parliamentary programme would be that it would help to space out the work. I am afraid it would not. It would be an aspiration towards spacing out the work but, even if you knew beforehand or declared beforehand all the things the Government intended to do, that would not get over the difficulty in which this House has found itself every year in the month of July or August since 1922. The real difficulty with regard to congestion of business is, I think, that the financial year is from April to April instead of January to January and I think we would be precluded by the terms of this motion from discussing whether that is a desirable change or not. I have heard it discussed. But, the result of the financial year being April to April is that the Budget, which occupies so much time in the other House necessarily, is thrown into the month of May and comes at a particular moment when the Estimates also fall for discussion in the other House and if there are any important pieces of legislation, as there were, for example, this time last year and this time two years and as there will be this year, then the Dáil gets all clotted up with business, with the result that in July or August this House is confronted with measures which have been considered at some length in the Dáil and which, in the nature of things, this House, grumbling, complaining and protesting, has to pass in the month of August. The remedy would be, of course, that the Dáil and this House should do more business in October-November-December and that the work should be transferred from June-July-August to October-November-December but, in the nature of things, and with the financial year as it is at present, I see no great possibility of doing that.

There is only one suggestion which I have to make, which I made a great many years ago when I was Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and when I had no experience at all as a Senator, and that is, that more use should be made of this House for the introduction of certain types of Bill. In the nature of things, you could not introduce in this House Money Bills or Bills which, even if they were not Money Bills, would be concerned to a very great degree with public moneys, but there are certain types of legislation which might very well be brought in here and which would help to relieve congestion in the Dáil and which would get a very good kind of consideration here. We had one example this very day. I think it would have been just as satisfactory, perhaps a little more satisfactory, if the Children Bill had been brought in here rather than in the other House. I see on the Order Paper of the Dáil at the present moment an Infanticide Bill from the Minister for Justice. These are matters which raise no political issues, no matters of high policy, but in connection with which the usefulness of a Second House might be very well displayed and which, if introduced here and if they got a particular kind of discussion in this House, would go through more rapidly in the other House and, instead of stuff being banked up in the other House and then suddenly overflowing here, you would have this House working at particular periods and it would make the work easier as between the two Houses. I have always considered, for example, that a Bill dealing with the Seanad itself should be introduced here rather than in the other House. That is really the only thing that I can suggest in present circumstances which would be of assistance in getting the business done and preventing the extreme congestion that seems always to occur in July or August.

I know that Heads of Government have had the heroic resolve in more than one case that they would not do legislation. I have heard that expressed with great vehemence and with, I am sure, great sincerity, but it does not always work out that the Head of the Government can avoid legislation. So far, the Taoiseach here present has not had very important, contentious legislation but there are some Bills in the offing which will certainly take time and while, as I say to Senator Fearon about his motion, that we could have more ceremony and, I think, ought to have more ceremony, the actual declaration by the Government of the legislative programme would not be of great importance in actually getting the business done. If Bills could be got through the other House before Christmas rather than coinciding with both the Budget and the Estimates then, of course, the whole situation would be radically changed. The desirability of doing that has always been recognised by Heads of Government but, for a great variety of reasons, it has not ever been found possible to do it.

The Senator explained that he did not use the word "session" in any technical sense but that it could mean Parliamentary year, but even the words "Parliamentary year" are difficult to define because the question is, when are you going to begin it—is it in the autumn or after Christmas? It is very difficult to say. Our actual system, which means that the session runs over the whole period of a Parliament, has proved in fact to be a good one.

The only concrete suggestion I can make to the Taoiseach and the House is that more use should be made of this House for the introduction of certain types of Bill, particularly Bills which are not of any political moment, and it would be rather in the way of a political education for the country if they realised how many Bills there are, and there is a very considerable number of such Bills, which have no political significance at all and which could be very satisfactorily discussed here and which then could go to the other House and, instead of coming here in July or August, could be finished by the other House about that time.

I think Senator Fearon is to be congratulated for giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter but it is not something which can be easily disposed of by way of motion in the Seanad. The difficulties in the matter are inherent in the facts and they are very hard to escape from, no matter what goodwill one may bring to bear upon them.

Mr. Ireland

With regard to Senator Fearon's motion, I am afraid I could not say very much about the possibility of outlining in advance what would happen in a given Parliamentary year because I have not Parliamentary experience but I was very interested in the other aspect of the Senator's remarks, the connection between ceremony and a republic. I was very interested because, in a pamphlet which was published in 1941, which I hope will be republished very shortly, I analysed the absence of ceremony about the opening of our Parliamentary year and I drew a connection between that and our republican outlook on government. I pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between the way an Irishman would regard a State coach and the way an Englishman regards a State coach. I think an Englishman is more impressed with the symbolism of the State coach itself and the Irishman is apt to look through the State coach to the reality of government which it represents and that, I said, was a republican way of looking at things. I think my analysis has been borne out by the course of Irish history in the meantime.

I do agree with some previous speakers that we might have more colour in the opening of the Parliamentary year and I think we would have very good analogies for that. In France they make quite a ceremonial out of it. As Senator Hayes has said, there was an unfortunate feeling in the Irish mind that any form of ceremony was associated with a foreign power in this country. I think it is time we began to build up our own ceremony. We have a very colourful collection of cavalry and I do not see why we should not use it.

Mr. Hearne

We have not.

Mr. Hawkins

They may be in abeyance.

Mr. Ireland

If we used this pageantry simply to underline the importance of this democratic institution of the Oireachtas then I think we would be using it in a republican fashion.

Mr. Hawkins

I was very interested from many points of view when I saw this motion on the Order Paper. I often felt that it would be a good thing if we had an indication from the Government at the beginning of a Parliamentary year, particularly after a general election, as to what legislation they proposed to introduce or what programme they proposed to give effect to. I quite realise that there are great difficulties and recent events have shown to all our people how almost impossible it would be to expect that such a programme could be outlined at the opening of Parliament. It may be possible when you have one or two Parties going before the people and putting before them a very clear and definite policy.

The people naturally expect and the members of Parliament expect that effect will be given to the programme of the Party that is elected as a Government but where you have a position arising from a general election that there are a number of Parties comprising the Government and where the programmes put before the people by those Parties are at variance, it would be very difficult even for the President or, if we had a Monarchy, for the King, to give an idea to the people as to which part of the various programmes would be given effect to in that Parliamentary year. Therefore, I think we must only place our confidence in the system of each Party putting before the people a clear, definite policy and programme and giving effect to that policy when elected as a Government to do so.

In connection with the suggestion of having a ceremonial opening, I think that has been already dealt with by Senator Hayes. Our past has compelled us to regard not too favourably all ceremonial occasions of that kind. We are here building up a new State and I think it would be very premature to come to a decision as to the form of such ceremonial opening of our Parliament. Senator Ireland pointed out that it would be very nice, and a great demonstration, that the President should arrive in Leinster House escorted by our Irish cavalry. He has overlooked the fact that we have disposed of or put into abeyance our cavalry and have now adopted an imported form of escort, motor bicycles, which, to my mind would not produce a proper ceremonial effect on the occasion of the opening of Parliament. Therefore, as far as the opening of Parliament is concerned, I think we can afford to leave that matter in abeyance with the many other matters but that consideration might be given to the suggestion put forward by Senator Hayes of having many Bills introduced in this House rather than in the other House. It would be well if at the opening of Parliament we could be given an idea of what programme would be given effect to.

Mr. Douglas

I think it is a good thing that motions of this kind should on occasion be brought forward and we should consider procedure and see whether it might not be possible to make improvements. Senator Fearon is decidedly optimistic, I would almost say innocent, if he thinks that a motion even of this kind could be brought forward without somebody introducing Party politics but we would not really enjoy a debate here if Senator Hawkins, Senator Hayes and some others had not a little to say on the matter. I was enormously interested to learn that for a period of 16 years a particular Party knew in advance what it was going to do and never changed its mind. That is a marvellous record if one could only believe it. I think it is inevitable that you will have differences of opinion. I would like to see a ceremonial opening of Parliament but I do not think that ceremony and pageantry are necessarily the same thing.

Obviously Senator Ireland and I have a slightly different idea about what way the President should arrive. I am not very much worried provided he gets here safely, but I think it would be a good thing if once a year we could have a ceremonial opening when both Houses meet and when either the Taoiseach of the day or the President in a speech prepared and acting on behalf of the Government and on advice were to indicate in general terms the outlook regarding policy and legislation for the year. I do not think, however, that it would have any value in the sense that Senator Fearon hopes it would. I do not think it would affect the date on which any Minister would be ready or the length of time it would take the Parliamentary Draftsman to get Bills ready. I am perfectly certain, even if we had that scheme, that the Seanad would find a lot of Bills coming in at the end of July and that nothing would change that. I am looking at the question not so much from the point of view of the members of both Houses but from the point of view of the public, and I think it would be a good thing if the Government, without giving details of the legislation, were to indicate in more or less general terms what it proposed during the coming 12 months to do, or what legislation would deal with certain problems. It would almost certainly mean more public discussion of those problems. Undoubtedly, political correspondents or whatever they call themselves would lose just a little, as they would be speculating on something for which there was at least some ground for speculation. Instead of our hearing first from some gentleman in the Press that it was rumoured or believed or thought or known with certainty that the Government intended to introduce a Bill dealing with some particular subject, measures would be indicated in a general survey. I think the value of that survey would be entirely from the point of view of creating more public interest and in focusing the minds of the people on the Parliament and with the same idea I would favour a ceremonial commencement once a year.

I am in general agreement with what Senator Hayes has said regarding the practical difficulties, but that may be because he and I were together to some extent when those difficulties were faced in the very beginning. Our views are liable to be coloured by that experience, but it might easily be that new minds would see things from a different point of view and work out something new.

I am not impressed by the word "session". We could easily have adopted the word "session" and not adopted the British practice, "the murder of the innocents", or whatever it is called on the other side. On the whole I think a position which has grown up partly by accident by which we treat the whole life of the Parliament as though it were a "session" in the British form has worked pretty well, and I do not think anyone wants to change it. Things which grow up are, as a general rule, better than things which we artificially try to create.

I should like the Government to consider whether it might not be possible this year to introduce some innovation in the commencement of Parliament in the Autumn. I would not like to say exactly what form it should take, but if there was to be a statement such as I have indicated or one more on the lines which Senator Fearon desires, one thing which I would strongly urge that should not take place is a debate on it. I think that a debate on the Address, such as they have in the British House which may be of value there because of its long tradition, would be sheer folly here in either House. They have it in both Houses over there, I think. You would be debating something you know very little about. It is only an outline and most debates on the Address are concerned with what is not in it rather than with what is in it. It would be sheer waste of time to have a debate, but some sort of general statement by the Government of the day, particularly if it were found to be useful in practice, would have considerable public value.

I should like to add to what Senator Hayes and Senator Hawkins have said —I have said this so often that I hardly like to repeat it—a suggestion to the Taoiseach that quite a lot of Parliamentary time could be saved if Ministers introduced non-controversial Bills into the Seanad, particularly those on which it would be likely to get helpful criticism on non-Party lines. As we know, there are quite a number of them and we, I think, do not do them full duty. These small Bills are introduced when the Minister is in a hurry, having had delay in the Dáil because they were not very important, and if the same amount of time were given here as is given in the Dáil to these Bills of no great political interest they would get a better examination and improvements could be suggested. It would not cause any embarrassment at all and with a few very rare exceptions they would go through to the Dáil promptly. When Estimates and work of that nature are taking up the time of the Dáil, better consideration could be given to those Bills here, and last but not least it would add to the useful function of this House which is something which ought not be overlooked. We could do a good deal more work if we were given that opportunity.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

I am very much in favour of the suggestion that this House should be used for the introduction of legislation more often than it has been the custom. It gives me extra pleasure to support that proposal because in the past I have frequently been accused of wandering outside the rigid boundaries of the subject matter under discussion, and although all Parties and all speakers up to now have approved of that suggestion, it is not mentioned even by implication in the motion. Sometimes it may be an advantage to wander, but whether it would be advantageous for us to wander in our robes through the city before the opening of Parliament I am not sure. I have witnessed, as I suppose many here have witnessed, the old Mayoral processions where Dublin Corporation met in solemn assembly in borrowed robes to drive through the city and I do not think they managed their affairs much better then than they do now when there is no ceremony or Lord Mayor's coach.

I can remember, as some of you can, I am sure, standing in the streets watching the grand dames and their escorts arriving for the Castle balls, and certainly it gave me no respect for the Castle or for its rule at the time. I am not sure whether there would be any more respect, or, rather, any less disrespect shown now to the Oireachtas if we went out in our robes. Ceremonial robes are all right for university professors or judges on the Bench, but I doubt if it is any more pleasant to be ordered to be executed by a judge in his robes with a black cap over his wig than it is in America where you can be put in the electric chair by a fellow just as plainly dressed as yourself. The thing you do matters rather than the costume you wear when you are doing it. Senator Ireland has been attracted to the idea by the possibility of marching, driving or trotting behind the Blue Hussars but he forgot that they have gone sky-high. I wonder what was the origin of ceremony in the British Parliament—will we start with a Gunpowder Plot of our own?

Mr. Anthony

It would not be the first time.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

I believe that we might make more use of this House. I am not so keen on a ceremonial opening and I do not think it would be feasible to submit to the Oireachtas an outline of the contemplated legislation. It might be submitted in outline, but there is no guarantee that it would be carried out. When we meet we get an Order Paper giving the orders of the day. That is a small, simple affair, and yet never once in my experience has the Order Paper been followed. It has always to be altered, chopped, changed and adapted.

Somebody made reference to the fact that it might be very difficult for Governments to outline their programme. There would be no difficulty whatever for Governments to outline their programme. Every Party outlines its programme in a general election and the one that gets into power has already given its outline. If it is said that it is not possible for a Party to carry out its promises I will agree, because in the 27 years' history of our Parliament no Party has ever carried out the promises it made before it was elected.

Mr. McGuire

I think there is a very good idea behind Senator Fearon's motion, although I suppose it would not be practicable to carry out his suggestions in full. There is a feeling that the legislation which has been enacted in the country since the inception of the State has been, to the man in the street, rather haphazard, and especially in later years the amount of legislation which has gone through the Oireachtas seems to be on an increasing scale. A great deal of uncertainty has undoubtedly been created in business circles, in my own sphere, because one never knows what is going to come out of the Oireachtas before the year would end. Anybody engaged in any forms of business, whether agriculture or industry, would like to have some idea from year to year of the major issues which are going to be before the country and how it is going to affect economic life. Therefore, I feel that there is a very good idea behind the suggestion that some general picture should be given to the country of what is proposed in each year.

We all know that to-day all Parties are calling for more and more legislation. I am glad to see that the present Government has let it be known that they wish to go a bit easy with the introduction of legislation. Senators will probably recollect that when General Mulcahy was speaking in this House to-day he referred to the necessity for a slow-down in regard to drastic and new changes in existing systems. Everybody seems to want a change in the whole system and completely new methods of doing everything. I feel that it would be well if we were to slow down on the introduction of legislation and think more before we initiate these new Bills and Orders.

It seems to me an important point that up to the present, with this terrific spate of legislation, Ministers did not get enough time to administer their Departments. Their work has grown enormously and the work in the Departments has swollen to a great degree. It stands to reason that if a Minister has to spend a lot of his time on new legislation he will have little or no time to look after his Department.

Senator Seamus O'Farrell is quite right in his remarks about ceremony. The Irish are not very much impressed by people wearing coloured scarves and funny hats, in gilded coaches. Somehow, I think that nowadays we are rather cynical when we see that type of thing. On the other hand, we can go too far the other way. In the early days of this State some of our magistrates did not wear any kind of robes at all, and I must say that I think that was carrying it too far. Ceremony of some kind is essential. The suggestion that the President should come here— especially now that the Repeal of the External Relations Act is about to be effected fully on Easter Monday—is important. The President is an essential part of our legislative system but he does not appear in it at all. He is in the Park and removed from it. The psychological effect of the President coming here at the opening of the Parliament after a general election, or once a year would, I think be good. It would stress how important he is in our legislative system.

Reference was made to the President's escort. From some of the remarks which have been passed it would seem that there is a regret that the horses were changed for motorcycles. I for one am very pleased that that has happened. If we are going to have ceremony it be a ceremony that grows up naturally from our own institutions. After all, we have only had fully active self-government for the last 25 years, and the horse was rapidly becoming obsolete even in those days. I always felt that the cavalry escort was something that was really dug up out of a musical comedy and that it was no credit to Ireland. It has been said that there is something un-Irish about a motor-cycle and something very Irish about a horse. I do not know whether the first horse appeared in Ireland, but I know that some of the first motor vehicles appeared in Ireland. We had some of the pioneers of that important industry in Ireland. It will be remembered that the pneumatic tyre was invented by an Irishman, and I remember myself, as a child, seeing the late Sir William Gough driving a motor car. I think it can be said that other Irishmen also were associated with the motor industry. The present motor-cycle escort is simple, dignified and practical. I feel, therefore, that Senator Professor Fearon has done a very good service in bringing this motion before the House and I shall be very interested to hear the views of other Senators on it.

Professor O'Brien

As the seconder of the motion I do not propose to say more than a word or two. I should like to assure Senator Séamus O'Farrell that it is no part of our intention that the members of the Oireachtas should wear robes at the opening of the Parliamentary session. Of all the people in this House who would be the least likely to advocate such a course I think the university professors would be the least likely. We have suffered for many years from having to wear most uncomfortable robes which are, nowadays, exceptionally expensive. I would say to anybody who introduces an amendment to this motion to the effect that we should wear robes that I would vote strongly against it. It is not part of the original motion.

I do not think I need apologise at this stage for the introduction of the motion. I think the discussion which it has provoked has shown that it is a necessary motion. A number of people in the Seanad feel that something of the kind is required. I feel that the very excellence of the discussion on the motion has brought out one of the functions of the Seanad which is not, perhaps, sufficiently realised, namely, that we can have discussions and that we have had discussions which are not directed towards any immediate legislative result. Even in the course of the last year we have had very interesting discussions in this House on the subject of the speed of motor vehicles, the payment of jurors and so forth. We have had discussions which, speaking as an outsider, I do not think would have been possible in the same tone and with the same objectivity in "another place".

That brings me to the desirability of using the Seanad for the introduction of legislation. I would suggest to the Taoiseach that he might consider the possibility of some special type of legislation as being particularly suitable for introduction in this House. I speak subject to correction, but I think that there is in this country no body corresponding to the Law Reform Committee which exists in Great Britain. It does seem to me that the common law is being gradually reformed and being brought up to date in Great Britain and that we are falling behind in that respect. Students of law in the universities find that in order to qualify for the examinations here they have to get old English textbooks of 20 or 30 years ago. English law has moved forward— the law of defamation and the law of negligence and branches of the common law have been brought in line with modern conditions. Non-contentious and non-political legislation would be suitable for introduction in the Seanad. There are a number of people in this House qualified to speak on that subject. If the question of the introduction of legislation into the Seanad is being considered, I suggest that that particular type of legislation would be eminently suitable.

Professor Stanford

In supporting the motion moved by Senator Professor Fearon that we should have more ceremony as distinct from pageantry in our openings of Parliament, I should like to raise one practical question. A certain amount of elasticity has been shown in determining the terms of the motion and perhaps I will be permitted to stretch it a little further. It is desirable that some indication should be given to Senators, well in advance, of the days when the House will be sitting. It is a very practical difficulty for fairly busy men. We have to guess whether on certain Wednesdays, Thursdays or Fridays the House will meet or not. It would be an enormous advantage if we could have a provisional calendar. There may be objection to that proposal, but I cannot at the moment see them.

Mr. Hayes

You would want a provisional calender for the Dáil first, and that would be very difficult.

Professor Stanford

If that is so, then it is hardly worth my while continuing.

Senators

Oh, no!

Professor Stanford

If we could even have certain definite weeks when the Seanad would meet it would be an enormous help. I know that the Seanad does not meet in Holy Week or in Christmas Week but it would help those who are contemplating vacations and especially those who wish to go abroad. If at all practicable, I think it would be very desirable to have a provisional calendar of some kind.

The Taoiseach

With what I conceive to be the purpose behind Senator Professor Fearon's motion, I am in sympathetic agreement. I must say, however, that I am very disappointed at the course of the debate. For the last 27 year I have had contact of one kind or another with every Government that has operated in this country since the establishment of this State. Throughout that entire time I think every Seanad that has sat has at some time or another had some kind of a motion in which it denounced the Government for neglecting the Seanad, for bringing it back at curious times, at vacation periods, and for other matters of that kind. The tone of the debate to-night was, I must say, disappointing because I did expect that there would be some more provocative matter for me to reply to. Even when Senator Hawkins made a contribution to the debate for the sole purpose of having a hit at the inter-Party Government—he made no other contribution to the debate as far as I could see—he did not succeed in rousing in me any considerable amount of ire. I am sorry to have to disappoint Senator Hawkins but I think he will have to reconcile himself to the fact that the inter-Party Government is working extremely well and very harmoniously.

Mr. Hearne

This has nothing to do with the motion.

The Taoiseach

May I say, at the outset, that I am very strongly of the view expressed by Senators Hayes and McGuire to the effect that the less legislation there is in existing circumstances the better. Last year when I started as Head of the present Government that was the headline I set myself. I felt that more good could be done for the people of the country, in existing circumstances, by administration rather than by legislation. A lot of good has been done in the last 27 years for my profession by the provision of laws that have been enacted very hurriedly, I am glad to say, by different Parliaments—thus providing fees for members of my profession and substantial law cases from time to time. I have, for the moment, temporarily deserted my profession. I do not propose to help my colleagues in gathering up my practice by giving more legislation to them to prey upon.

Seriously, I think that the country, in existing circumstances, can be governed better by administration than by legislation. Consequently, I hope that when this Government bows itself out—whenever that may be—it will be able to boast that it did something good for the country and that it had introduced very few Acts of Parliament. With that object in view, it would be difficult to carry out one object of this motion—to indicate at the beginning of each session or Parliamentary year, whatever you like to call it, the Government's intentions in relation to legislation—because it was the Government's intention to introduce as little legislation as possible.

Senator Douglas rather put his finger on the real difficulty. If the proposal could be given effect to—if, at the beginning of each year, the Government, either through the Taoiseach or by way of a speech by the President, did give an outline or an indication of the Government's programme for the ensuing year—there would inevitably be a debate upon those proposals. There would be a certain measure of convenience in a mere bald statement of what the Government intended to do, even though it were the merest outline, but without a debate there would be little interest and, with a debate, in existing circumstances and in the circumstances that are likely to exist for many years to come, there would be nothing, in my view, but the sheerest waste of time. Senator Douglas did not want a debate. Without a debate it would be of no interest and with a debate there would be bound to be considerable acrimony and very considerable waste of time. I suppose one's point of view changes when one is in opposition and when one is in Government.

Mr. Hawkins

It looks like it.

The Taoiseach

As far as my outlook on this matter is concerned, I may say that it has always been the same. I would think it would be wise and prudent and desirable from many points of view that some indication should be given to both Houses not merely at the beginning of each Parliamentary year but at the beginning of each period resumption after adjournment of what the Parliamentary programme would be; but I am not on the whole in favour of something which would be the counterpart of the gracious Speech from the Throne. I may say that, historically speaking, I killed that practice early in the history of this State by giving advice to the then Government that it was not constitutionally necessary. If it was not constitutionally necessary at that time, I am disposed to the view that it is not constitutionally possible at present under the existing Constitution. I have made it a rule in the Dáil not to give any expression of my opinion on constitutional matters when I speak as a Deputy and I do not propose to depart from that self-imposed rule now when speaking to the Seanad, but I certainly would like to get competent advice on the question whether or not, having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, it would be constitutionally possible for the President, to do what Senator Fearon suggests, that is, to come and open Parliament and to make a speech indicating the Parliamentary programme for the ensuing year. I draw attention to the possible doubt as to the consitutionally of such a procedure, but if the Seanad were desirous of ascertaining the correct view, I would take the opinion of the Attorney-General upon it.

With regard to the other suggestions made, that this House should be, more than it has been, used for dealing with measures of a non-controversial or non-Party character, if it is possible to get any such Bill, I should be very much disposed to consider sympathetically, and to ask my colleagues to consider sympathetically, that suggestion. I think there are such Bills—Senator Hayes referred to one to-day. There are a number of them at the moment in preparation. There are a number of Bills which I think could get better consideration here in the calmer atmosphere of this House than they would ever get in the atmosphere of the Dáil.

Senator O'Brien referred to a law reform committee. I have consistently refrained for a long number of years from advocating the formation of a law reform committee—I gave my reasons in the Dáil from time to time—because I was afraid—I was terrified, perhaps I might say—that such a committee would be set up because inevitably on to that committee would creep or be placed all the cranks that could be collected in this somewhat cranky country and I was very much afraid of what would emerge from a law reform committee of the type which my somewhat fervid imagination conjured up. That does not mean that I do not favour law reform. I have been asking for it for a number of years and I hope before I cease to be a member of the present Government to have certain Bills before this Parliament reforming the existing law and bringing it up to date in the way of which Senator O'Brien has spoken. Some years ago, I introduced one myself into the Dáil and the then Government undertook to sponsor it as a Government measure. It was placed in the limbo of the Department of Justice from which I hope to unearth it one of these days.

I think that measures dealing with law reform are peculiarly the types of Bills that could be dealt with here, measures dealing with social matters such as the Bill referred to by Senator Hayes, the Infanticide Bill. That has been introduced in the Dáil, but it might very easily and properly have been introduced here because it does raise a question of very great social importance. I do not want to anticipate the discussion upon it, but it is the very type of Bill which could be dealt with here and, without giving any guarantee or being in any position to bind or speak for my colleagues who have not had an opportunity of dealing with this motion, I can give the Seanad my own personal view that it is desirable that Bills of that kind should be introduced in the Seanad in the first instance.

With regard to the question of ceremony, cermonial or pageantry, that is largely a matter of a point of view and taste. I personally believe there is value in ceremonial. I attach some importance, with all respect to Senator O'Farrell, even to robes. I made a considerable amount of money in my time out of wearing robes and I found it was a good commercial proposition. The fact that members of my profession did wear robes set them apart as something that had grown up naturally, as a profession which had a separate existence, the cachet or outward symbol of which was the wig and gown they wore in the courts; but the wearing of wig and gown would have been merely comic if these robes had not behind them the long tradition they have. If somebody or another had sat down and decided that Senators should wear a particular type of dress with coocked hats or tall hats and flowing robes, I am afraid the risibilities of the Dublin populace would probably have been called into action very rapidly. But if these robes had, like the robes of the Dublin Corporation members, a tradition behind them, if the people were acustomed to them and associated them in their own minds with a particular office and a particular dignity in that office, they would have a value, and I agree with those Senators who said that you cannot artificially create ceremony. That is the worst thing you could do. It has to grow up naturally and be suited to the traditions and outlook of the people.

Behind this motion is very probably, even though Senator Fearon does not know it, some lingering connection with the ceremony and the practice of the British Parliament. It is natural that that should be there. The British Parliament is opened with the ceremony of the King driving to Parliament, with the Black Rod, the Commons asking for their privileges and all the rest of that pageantry, but that grew up out of the history and out of the building up of the Parliamentary institutions in England. Unless our ceremony grows up naturally from the building up of our own institutions, it will be just a purely artificial tag on to our institutions, which will not last. I would be entirely in favour—giving expression merely to a personal point of view—of a rather ceremonial opening of the new Parliament. I am not at all so convinced of the desirability of a ceremonial opening every year. I would favour anything at all, whether it be ceremony or pageantry, which increases the dignity and enhances the prestige of Parliamentary institutions in this country. I think that should be the predominant motive in reference to all that. If whatever we do increases that prestige and increases the respect our people have for their own institutions and if it tends, above all, to raise the standard which members of both Houses of the Oireachtas set for themselves in Parliamentary debate and in Parliamentary conduct, it is something which ought to be fostered and even created. That should be the test, in my view.

I think it would be desirable for the President to open the new Parliament. I draw attention to the doubt that I have, without expressing any opinion on it, as to whether the President could constitutionally do what is suggested in the way of something which could be the counterpart of the speech from the Throne in England, but, subject to that, there would be no objection that I could see to his opening Parliament. It certainly would add to the prestige of Parliament and would secure further respect from the people for it. We have, as Senators know, the institution of the Church services at the opening of a new Parliament. I rather fancy that if that was turned into something that became an annual event, its repetition would spoil its novelty and the ceremony would probably cease to have any great effect and might fall merely into the category of an annual event of no particular importance.

Mr. Hawkins

Is there not a provision in the Constitution whereby the President can address both Houses of Parliament?

The Taoiseach

There is, of course. The Senator wants to turn me back into being a lawyer. I hope he does not expect me to give him a constitutional opinion. The provisions in reference to his addressing Parliament have an entirely different connotation or meaning from what I think is in the Senator's mind. The President may address Parliament after certain formalities have been observed; he may give a message to the people; but that is not saying what Government business is going to be, so I commend to the Senator a persual of the relevant Articles.

Professor Fearon

I should like to say how grateful I am to my colleagues for their very friendly discussion of my motion, and to the Taoiseach for the exposition of his views on the subject. I anticipated many of the objections raised, but I did not refer to them because I did not want to put ideas into people's heads. Most of the other difficulties, I think, come from a couple of misconceptions which, before asking for permission to withdraw the motion, I should like to clear up. The first is the Royal speech and debate. I never mentioned the Royal speech—what I had in mind was the President's address to the American Legislature, and I certainly had no in tention of suggesting that the speech by the President or by anybody who condescended to open our session should be the subject of debate. The only thing I did feel was that, if he came here and gave a message, he would have to say something, the alternative being that he would receive an address from us. Which would be likely to inflict more trouble on him, I do not know. Certainly, some sort of programme would have to follow, but a debate, and especially a general debate, would be a general nuisance, and I ask Senators please not to associate me with the suggestion that the formal opening of the Seanad should be the subject of debate at all.

The other point is that I resisted the temptation to follow the invisible robe that Senator O'Farrell seemed to trail before me. I never mentioned robes. Like any Dubliner, I have many recollections of the old Lord Mayor's processions, with their atmosphere of dust and month balls and all the exhibition of obsolete paraphernalia, but that is not what I had in mind. Nobody suggested that this House should acquire robes for the occasion and parade the city. Senator O'Farrell must be thinking of the zoo or the waxworks or the circus coming to town. I never mentioned robes and I oppose them as strongly as Senator O'Brien. Furthermore, as to the introduction of ceremonial, my own impression was that it would be in the right tradition if the President condescended to come here in his ordinary car and was received here by a guard of honour. No fireworks or salutes or bands. Quite a simple and dignified ceremony. I hope it will yet be possible to achieve such an aim.

As to the other point. I, perhaps, did not emphasise clearly enough what I meant by a blue print for the Seanad. I hoped that would lead us, as it did, to a discussion of the possibility of Private Bills and even Government Bills being introduced here. The blueprint would give us an idea of the pieces of State legislation that we might help to make. That has been, more or less, replied to by several speakers. I do think the Seanad has resources that have not yet been tapped to the full. I am very grateful for being able to hear this discussion and I ask permission to withdraw my motion. It emphasised points that I think needed to be emphasised and has shaken things up a little bit.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.18 p.m., until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 30th March, 1949.