Sometimes we do things in here which don't make sense. The fact that neither Dβil nor Seanad were sitting this week is one such case in point. At a time when there is no shortage of problems and with an arm-long list of legislation to process it flies in the face of common sense to take a mid-term break.
Drapier can see why the Government would welcome such a break. Governments, especially those long in office, do not like being questioned, especially about those things they promised but did not do, or those things they have done, and done badly. The Dβil is the one place they have to face such questioning and it is not something Ministers particularly like. Not just here, but in parliaments everywhere. Tony Blair has mastered - for the moment at least - this problem by halving Prime Minister's Question Time and by reducing the role of backbenchers through concentrating more and more power in the hands of media manipulators and control freaks, answerable not to Parliament but to himself directly - though some of that is starting to backfire on him, and he has already had to face one backbench rebellion this session. Drapier foresees many such as the new "presidential" style squeezes out the backbenchers.
That has not happened here and Drapier wants to be fair to Seamus Brennan who has been one of the best reforming Chief Whips of recent times. The new format on the Order of Business, giving Michael Noonan and Ruair∅ Quinn automatic question slots is an important new instrument of parliamentary accountability, and ensures that there are now no "no-go" areas as far as topical questioning of government is concerned, even if it has yet to be used to its full potential.
Drapier is aware, too, that the Dβil Committee on Procedure and Privileges is finalising a further set of reforms aimed at modernising the way the Dβil does its business - what about the Seanad, Drapier wonders? - and from what Drapier has heard they promise to be radical.
Drapier understands very clearly why this - and any - Government likes as much time away from the House as possible. They like to be busy "governing". But what about the Opposition? Only Shane Ross - who claims to be "independent" rather than "opposition" (try telling Fianna Fβil that!) - kicked up any sort of fuss. He got nowhere. Even the newspapers, or those who still bother to report our proceedings, failed to note his protest.
In Drapier's view the point is an important one. By taking a week's break, the rhythm of the parliamentary term is broken, the pressure which was mounting on the Government is dissipated, and there is no effective way of questioning and probing the Government, even though major events continue to happen all round. Imagine how happy Mary O'Rourke must be to have a break from questions about Aer Lingus, M∅cheβl Martin from questions on health, and the PDs from anything to do with the abortion issue.
Draper feels he has made the point. A truly hungry Opposition would not readily agree to letting the Government off the mid-term hook, or any hook. It would want to pin the Government down, week after week in the Dβil chamber, forcing it to answer the questions it can evade or entrust to its spin doctors elsewhere.
But, in a way there is a strange mood in Leinster House these days. Most eyes are elsewhere - on conventions, constituencies, running mates and opinion polls. As things stand there is a sense that this Dβil has done all it can usefully do, and all that remains is the shadow boxing which precedes the real election campaign.
Drapier thinks differently. This is the time in the life of a parliament and government when those in power are most vulnerable. Ministers, tired and out of touch, are prone to mistakes, pressure groups up the ante, some circles stubbornly refuse to be squared, and other problems simply run out of solveable time. Most of all it is the time when ministers are likely to become arrogant, smug or jittery. Or sometimes all three.
It is for all these reasons that it is the time when opposition parties should be at their most lethal, staking their claim to government. And asserting their claim and their authority most of all in the Dβil chamber.
And that is why Drapier does not understand the thinking behind the agreement not to sit this week. Shane Ross may be an "Independent" but he could teach the "Opposition" a lesson or two on this one.
Drapier will stay away this week from the burning issues - the North, with its endless capacity to produce yet more problems, Aer Lingus where, in Drapier's view, a culture change is a pre-requisite to any salvation, the continuing dip in the economy where uncertainty and lack of any clear guidance are the main enemies, and of course the abortion issue, still slumbering, but with a few kicks and surprises in it, especially, Drapier feels, for some of those Fianna Fβil TDs whose patronising of the Opposition on Second Stage may yet backfire and make their current smugness seem ill-judged.
All of these issues will come back over the coming weeks, some with a vengeance. Drapier's concern today is the judgment of Chief Justice Ronan Keane which leaves Seβn Doherty free to resume his committee's inquiries into CI╔'s cost overruns.
Drapier was not surprised by the Supreme Court decision, especially in view of the earlier robust judgment of Judge Andreas ╙ Cuiv in the High Court. While we have yet to hear Judge Peter Kelly's judgment on the Abbeylara committee - and most of the rumours from the Four Courts on this one are negative, at least from parliament's point of view - the Supreme Court does, for the moment at least, lift some of the uncertainty over the future of the committee system.
From the start Drapier has praised the way in which Seβn Doherty has chaired this particular committee. He has been courteous and insistent even in the face of some extraordinary insolence and superciliousness on the part of some of those questioned. Hubris is a dangerous thing, but it was in plentiful supply during the early part of the hearings as witness after witness conveyed their sense of contempt for the process and their anger at the temerity of those who would question them - even though the questions were about how public contracts valued at millions were awarded and in circumstances which were at the very least questionable.
It will be interesting to see if the committee can regain its earlier momentum. The long break, with all its attendant uncertainty was not helpful and whatever findings which result will certainly face legal challenges.
It was important that the committees' rights were vindicated by the Supreme Court. That in itself was an important constitutional victory for parliament. But it may well be that having won that victory and when the committee has finished its work, we take a hard look at how we can best shape the future of our still developing committee system. We have learned a lot in the lifetime of this Dβil; it will be a pity if we do not learn from our experience.