Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am very happy to be associated with this initiative by Senator Quinn. Down through the years of serving with Senator Quinn, I have always admired his imaginative approach to legislation. We can always be assured that when he brings a Bill before the House, there will be plenty of meat and drink in it, and it will not be just a common or garden Bill.

I had the pleasure of taking part in the 1996 debate in this House on the National Cultural Institutions Bill.Interestingly, that debate was taken by the then Minister for Arts, Culture and Gaeltacht and the current President, Michael D. Higgins. Former Senator Joe Lee and I argued the toss about the merits or otherwise of merit systems. I was of the view, which I still hold to a certain extent, that it was a pity, as Senator Craughwell noted, that the revolutionary fervour of the Young Irelanders in the new State swept away all of what they believed to be the vestiges of colonial power. It was not just in the context of nobility awards. Some of the fine houses of Ireland were burned out and much of our heritage was lost in the immediate aftermath of 800 years of colonial rule. Perhaps, from this remove, one cannot be critical of the people and what they did at the time because they had their reasons. However, I always drew parallels with what happened in the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution when the revolutionaries - thesans-culottes- did not destroy anything of the nobility that was left. They kept the houses, the presidential palaces and many of the titles.

The Republic of Ireland is pretty close to being unique in the European context in not having a state merit system. The Fianna Fáil Government that took power in 1932 was full of revolutionaries who had a particular agenda and who were virulently anti-colonial. As a result, the 1937 Constitution reflects that. I am not sure if Senator Ó Murchú referred to this but in the debate surrounding awards in 1996, we argued that it is at least partly due to the 1937 Constitution that Ireland has no formal honours system. The explicit provision of Article 40.2.1 of de Valera's Constitution seems to have been at least partially motivated by calls at the time of the 1932 Eucharistic Congress that an official honour be conveyed on the papal legate to Ireland. The new Fianna Fáil Government was strongly opposed to the conveying of such titles of nobility based on the experience of such patronage titles under British rule. The initial draft of Article 40.2.2 of the 1937 Constitution stated that "Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State." However, it also stated that "Orders of Merit may, however, be created." Unfortunately, that draft did not survive, which was probably due to the ideological approach de Valera and his Government took at the time. They wanted to remove any vestiges of colonial power.

Even at this remove, I think that was a mistake. At the time of the debate we had on awards in 1996 in respect of the Cultural Institutions Bill, I said that there was an argument for restoring the Order of St. Patrick, a singular honour that was abolished in 1921 on the foundation of the State. Those who have an interest in it will find the family flags of those who were conferred with the Order of St. Patrick in St. Patrick's Hall in Dublin Castle. I thought we could have reintroduced that. The then Minister and current President, Michael D. Higgins, was not particularly enthusiastic about even that approach so we agreed to disagree on it. In my opinion, matters have moved on. Senator Craughwell is right. It is almost 100 years since the British left Ireland. We are a sovereign independent republic. One of the highest civilian honours the US President gives to a civilian is the Order of Merit, while France has the Légion d'honneur. Many other countries have state honours.

The main argument for me - I do not know whether Senator Quinn would have reflected on this - is that we now have a plethora of awards in this country. They are all well-meaning. We have the Person of the Year award and various other awards. I saw on Google that various institutions have merit awards for their members. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with that but the bestowing of so many awards at a national level dilutes the impact of such awards. I am of the view that all of this could be addressed by the State - specifically in the person of the President - taking on the role envisaged and outlined in the proposals contained in Senator Quinn's Bill. I do not for one moment have any fear that it would be politicised.

If one considers the merit system in Great Britain - I am not suggesting that we go down that road - one can see that it is not the Queen who decides. It is decided by a panel of mostly anonymous civil servants who proceed on the basis of submissions received from the general public. Anybody can write in and say that, for example, Senator Mullen is entitled to receive an award because of the great work he has done or that Senator Eamonn Coghlan should receive one because of his contribution to athletics and the arts. Members of the general public write in, all of the material is collated and the decisions are made by a group of people. I do not think there has ever been any suggestion in Great Britain that there is a political motivation behind it, even though it is a very complicated system. I know the Prime Minister awards his or her own titles but that is separate.

I thank the Chair for indulging me on this. I fully support the concept behind the Bill. I also support the detail of the Bill because it covers all the angles and I see no reason why we should not proceed along the lines outlined in it. I give the Bill my full and enthusiastic support.