1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will elaborate on comments he made on 26 July 2007 that an honours system should be created; if he will bring forward proposals in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19880/07]
2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he plans to introduce an honours system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23840/07]
3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will introduce a scheme to honour citizens; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25355/07]
4 Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Taoiseach if he will introduce an honours system here for persons who make a contribution to the State and civic society. [29803/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The issue of a State honours system has been mooted many times in the past but there has never been all-party support to sustain its development. In September 1999, I wrote to the main Opposition party leaders enclosing a discussion paper. It was the first time a serious attempt had been made to outline the broad shape of such a scheme. I made it clear that I was completely open to any views which other parties might wish to put forward, including, in particular, views on the central question as to whether a scheme was desirable.
It has always been my view that a national honours system would require all-party consensus if it were to proceed. However, it was evident at the time that there was not the cross-party support required to introduce such a scheme. I have always been in favour of some form of national honours system and it is a matter of considerable regret to me that we do not have any way of formally recognising outstanding achievements by Irish citizens.
In this regard, I recently wrote to Opposition party leaders to inquire if the parties would now be prepared to enter into discussions about a system for formally recognising conspicuous service to Ireland and the Irish people or signal achievements in various fields of endeavour. I am pleased to report that Deputy Kenny has responded favourably on behalf of his party, indicating that it is prepared to enter all-party negotiations and nominating Senator Frances Fitzgerald as its representative. Deputy Gilmore has indicated that he intends to bring the proposal before his party's parliamentary party and will revert to me in the matter when it has considered it. To date, I have not received a response from Deputy Ó Caoláin. Other Deputies have raised this issue in the House a number of times. For example, Deputy Finian McGrath, supported by other Deputies, has raised it with me many times.
I acknowledge that the Taoiseach has written to the party leaders about this matter and that I have indicated to him that I will respond when my parliamentary party has considered it. I would like to elicit further information from him about what he has in mind. We live in a republic, the basis of which is that every citizen is equal. Is an honours system a good idea in principle, given that the implication of such a system is that the status of some citizens — those who would receive honours — would somehow be greater than that of other citizens? How will we square an honours system with the strong opposition the founders of the State had to it, for the reasons outlined? How will we square it with the intent, if not the letter, of the Constitution, which explicitly states that titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State? I appreciate the Taoiseach is not talking about introducing titles of nobility, but the intent of the Constitution was, in keeping with the thinking of the founders of the State, that honours and elevated status for some citizens was not a republican ideal.
I did not put forward a draft scheme for consideration in my letter to the leaders of the Opposition, because I understand it might be more helpful to let the outlines of a scheme emerge from discussions at all-party level, if there is agreement to hold such discussions. I did, however, offer a number of views, which may be useful to any further discussions. In 1998 or 1999, I set out a fairly detailed scheme. It was not the details, but the concept that stopped that scheme going forward at the time.
In response to Deputy Gilmore, I would like to make a few points. I am on record for ten or 15 years as saying I do not favour a system that would confer titles. I suggested that any scheme should operate within the existing constitutional framework and involve the conferring of public awards or citations. That can be done within the Constitution and does not require any change. It is not necessary to get involved in a change to the Constitution on the issue.
The system should be capable of applying to citizens, the diaspora and others who have made a significant contribution at international level or in Ireland. It should operate, and be seen to operate, transparently and independently. If we ever go ahead with this scheme, it should be open and not discriminate against anybody from any walk of life or class, creed or location. It should be an honour capable of being achieved by any citizen so that there is no elitism, as in some countries, attached to it. While a broad range of service achievements could be covered, I am particularly anxious that exceptional service for the betterment of the community would be included.
I have not gone over the history of this issue recently, but nine years ago I read the file in detail. The idea is certainly not new in political terms. The file started in July 1930 and has continued since. It is interesting, probably very interesting from the point of view of how not to do things. It was started in 1930 by Ernest Bligh, who made some progress on it. In 1946 Éamon de Valera took it up and he was followed in 1948 by Mr. Costello. In 1953 Éamon de Valera took it up again and was again followed in 1956 by Mr. Costello. In 1959 Mr. Lemass took it up and so on. I took up the issue in 1999 and have given it some attention since. All those involved were trying to establish a system. The issue about Ireland being a republic is well and truly covered.
There are good systems in Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France — on which we have based many decisions on issues — Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. To be honest I had put this one away, having tried in 1998 or 1999 to reopen it. The reason I have returned to it again is that quite a number of people, not a massive number, have been offered titles or honours by another jurisdiction. The present position is that if somebody is to receive a title or honour, he or she informs the Government. The majority of them have not been interested but raised the point that they have been asked and wish to inform us. Others have been offered honours and have accepted. There is a notional view that the Government must be asked and obviously we agree when asked.
One can see what is happening, a number of our prominent people are being honoured by the UK establishment. They would prefer, I think, to be recognised in their own country or not recognised at all. With most of them it is not a big issue. There is a continual trend of this practically every quarter. I am not talking about this scheme being for such people because many people here would not be known outside our own shores. There are certainly a great number of people, whether NGOs working in the Third World, those who are just good community people or people who have achieved internationally whom we should recognise. We have some schemes and probably many award schemes that are all important in their own right but we have no national award scheme for people who would consider they are being recognised nationally either through the President or by an advisory group of Parliament. That is a pity and the reason this debate has gone on, in one form or another, since 1930.
That was a very long answer. Normally when one goes back on history one does so either to refresh one's memory or to revise it. The Taoiseach has given the history of this matter and has mentioned most of his predecessors. I am quite happy to participate in this business provided it is absolutely above board. The problem is how to put in place a system that does not breed cynicism. We all know of the claims and the cases that were taken in respect of payments and donations to British parties for appointment to the rank of nobility or something like that. We do not want a situation where we have Sir Bertie Ahern in a few years time because——
The Deputy will never hear me being referred to as Sir.
——somebody decides to make payments by way of a dig out or whatever. I am not suggesting that would happen and I do not think that is what the Taoiseach has in mind.
Sir Michael Ring.
Or Sir Conor Lenihan.
Lord of the Rings has a better ring to it.
I am not referring to the Minister beside the Taoiseach. Actually when I do mention donations, that is a party that wanted to get rid of donations altogether and now finds it cannot make a donation to its own party. The people of the year awards is a system whereby a panel looks at valid contributions made by men and women in various categories of Irish life and makes an award to them. Years ago I was instrumental in the presidential Gaisce awards for young people, who complete certain tasks or activities and are nominated for presidential honours in that sense. The problem for politicians is that no matter what is done it will breed a cynical response. I recall the Taoiseach in his own inimitable fashion saying on "Six-one" that he honoured people by appointment to State boards because they were his friends. That is not what he has in mind here. We are quite happy to participate in this exercise to see if it is possible to devise a scheme whereby Irish men and Irish women can be honoured without it becoming a partisan party political "How is your father? I will look after you" system. We will support it if the Taoiseach will guarantee that surreptitious payments will not be made to political parties, as happened in Great Britain for the achievement of honours to be nominated by the Queen or, as would be the case here, by the President, in respect of whatever system is set up. I assume this is not what the Taoiseach has in mind. We need to draw a balance with regard to perfectly legitimately honouring Irish men and women for outstanding achievements or their contribution to our society. I am sure the Taoiseach does not want a situation where people will say "That is because he was a supporter of Fianna Fáil" or "She was a supporter of Fine Gael", or whatever the case might be, or that it suddenly comes to light that the person is making contributions to the Green Party for nomination as a person of honour in the country.
There are many good schemes. Gaisce, the President's award, is one scheme that challenges young people to use their leisure time for positive development for the betterment of their communities. The Aosdána award is in place for artists. The Deeds of Bravery Council makes awards for the saving of human life in situations involving personal risk. The Scott medal is awarded to members of the Garda and there is a military medal for gallantry as well as a distinguished service medal for the Army. The Michael Heffernan memorial award covers the area of the marine and natural resources. Honorary citizenship is also awarded, although very sparingly — Chester Beatty, Dr. and Mrs. Herrema, Tip O'Neill, Jack Charlton, Derek Hill and a few others received that award. While all those awards are fine, they are very limited and, collectively, are small enough, although the Gaisce award is perhaps not so.
I am sure the Deputy heard me explain I do not favour a system that would confer a title or titles. I suggested that any scheme would operate within the existing constitutional framework and would involve the conferring of public awards or citations. We are talking about people who are involved in good deeds.
Deputy McGrath asked me a series of questions on this issue last year and I replied that such awards would be made to recognise exceptional service to mankind, outstanding achievement which confers international distinction on Ireland, conspicuous service to Ireland and Irish people, or pre-eminent inspiration or contribution in any field of Irish life, usually but not necessarily of a national character, with the emphasis on voluntary and community services. The system would have to be categorised as being open to any man or woman in the country, young or old, not someone who did something great last Saturday, although at times that might be acceptable.
We all know there is a huge number of people who do outstanding things because we see or hear of them in our public lives. However, they are never recognised because we do not have such a scheme, although practically every other country does. We had a row on this. I read the file and skimmed over it again at the weekend, although I did not re-read it in full. Looking back, one can see the issue concerned the Republic and other such arguments.
To be fair, across the water, in what is another establishment and another country, while their system may have other problems, their problem with finance concerned the House of Lords and the title system, with people wanting to become a member of a House of Parliament. We are not talking about such a system.
There is nothing wrong with the People of the Year awards or any of the county or sporting awards, which are all good awards, but we are out of step as we do not have national recognition for our people. There are open views on whether we should have one, but we should have some system.
The second point concerns transparency. The system would require a politically agreed panel that would examine this. If it was to be close to any other system, it would have to be done by a group. While the Government of the day might pass recommendations to the President, it would be best to have nothing to do with the system other than that. The decision should be made by whatever would be an acceptable advisory group.
I will make a third point but I do not want it to be misunderstood because it is good when an Irish person is honoured by another government, whether nearby or far away. Increasingly, the British Government is honouring Irish people with distinctions, of which there has been a number. It is happening nearly every quarter. I can nearly tell when it will occur because it has been that way for five years. Some accept honours, while others do not, but that is a matter for them. Whenever I am asked — a regulatory or legal provision — I always say yes because it is an honour for the individual involved. If it continues for the next ten years, that will be great but as they are Irish people, I would like to think we will recognise them because we are all proud of them. We have seen this happen in a number of categories, including broadcasters, sports people, business people and writers. They are from different backgrounds. I do not think the British Government or Monarchy is picking them for any reason other than the fact that they have achieved an extraordinary task. It would be nice if we recognised their achievements, not only for them but for the people generally. It would be a fitting tribute to them. I am sure Deputies Kenny and Gilmore regularly meet people around the country who have given service for half a century to a charitable or community organisation, but they receive no national recognition. I am sure it is not a big deal for most of them but it would be nice to have such a system.
The former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, honoured the Taoiseach in the British Parliament, rightly so, for his contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process. I attended that ceremony as a mark of respect for the work undertaken by all the Governments concerned. Does the Taoiseach have in mind a name or title for the honour, as distinct from titles granted to individuals? I hope political agreement can be reached on a panel to examine the matter. One does not want people to achieve such awards that they would be ten a penny every year. Therefore, a level of achievement, heroism or outstanding example would have to be established beyond which persons would be considered for an onóir náisiúnta or whatever it might be called. Does the Taoiseach have any numbers in mind or is he starting from a basic foundation, seeking agreement on a panel to consider the elements mentioned? After that it would be clearly seen to be apolitical, not a personality title, but rather an onóir náisiúnta to mark outstanding achievement in whatever field, by young or old, male or female.
As I said, I am totally open on the matter. While we proposed a scheme which we had prepared within the Department based on discussions in 1998, I am not wedded to it. As regards a national award, I am inclined to think it should concern continuity of service. While some may differ, I am not hugely into honouring the person who scored a goal last week or won a competition because there are many awards for such persons. There should be a national award for distinguished service at home or abroad over a prolonged period. It should be for community-based individuals who have done a good job for the country but have never been in the limelight, rather than for those whose names are up in lights all the time. There are many such persons. Others say people who do that are not interested, but when they are asked by another administration, they are very interested but they would prefer to be recognised by their own Administration. They come forward because they know I will probably hear anyway or it will come through the system, even though it does not always. They are interested in recognition.
I am totally opposed to titles because that would create a constitutional issue and any scheme would have to comply with the Constitution. People are interested in recognition and not in the conferral of public awards, citations or titles. Previous schemes in this area tended to cover approximately 100 people and distinctions were made. These included exceptional service to mankind; outstanding achievement which confers international distinction on Ireland; conspicuous service to Ireland and to Irish people, which brings in the international scene, NGOs and others; and pre-eminent and inspirational contribution in any field of Irish life, usually but not necessarily of a national character, with particular emphasis on voluntary community service and service to persons in the community who are disadvantaged or marginalised but not restricted to those purposes.
I have no interest in trying to do this quickly or in pushing any particular scheme. There is a void in this regard, particularly in recognising outstanding people who are not generally well known and who may not want to be, but whose considerable achievement, effort and commitment is felt by others to deserve recognition. It should be kept to that area. The only way to do this is to ensure the scheme is open to everybody without distinction and there should be no classes. An advisory group should operate the scheme on behalf of the political system. The Government of the day, within the normal Constitution rules, should take its recommendation and make it to the President without change. If anybody thinks that is a load of nonsense and there is another way, I am as open to that.
The more I hear of this, the less I like it or think it is necessary. First, as the Taoiseach accepted, a range of schemes is in place to acknowledge the service of people, including the People of the Year awards and awards such as honorary degrees and the freedom of a city. If a national honours scheme is introduced, will it undermine such awards, given that a recipient of a freedom of the city or a People of the Year award might feel it is not the real McCoy because he or she did not receive a national honours award?
Second, the Taoiseach put a great deal of emphasis on people being honoured by other jurisdictions who feel if they are honoured by another state, they should be honoured by this State. That is a good reason not to do this. For example, a number of people could receive MBEs and pressure would then be on the advisory group to honour them because they received an MBE across the water. If the belief is that because many people receive awards in other states, we should honour them as well, that is an argument not to do this because there will be pressure to honour them.
A third issue is the backlog that would arise under such a system. Presumably if the process of an honours system is commenced, many people would be on the list to be honoured. There might be a gradual process of honouring people in years ahead but initially the names of a pile of people will be stacked up to be honoured, for many of whom perhaps, to put it kindly, time is running out. The pressure will be on to award them the honour in time.
I am not convinced that such an initiative is a good idea. I am willing to hear what the Taoiseach has to say and to examine whatever detailed proposals he has on it. However, this is an area where the Government should leave well enough alone.
This matter has been the subject of debate for 77 years. I do not want to put undue emphasis on it. No matter what one says, somebody will pick up on something. I was careful to say we are talking of a handful of people honoured by another jurisdiction, whether in the United States, different parts of Europe, recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize or awards by the British Government. It is similar to the freedom of the city of Dublin, which has been awarded to a handful of people in the past few hundred years. However, many pre-eminent and inspirational people not necessarily with a national standing have made a major contribution to Irish life with particular emphasis on voluntary and community service.
I was only making the point regarding those who have been recognised by other countries. Many people, although not huge numbers, have said to me they were offered recognition but they did not want to accept it and others have said they were offered it and wanted to accept it. They all say they would love if there was an honours system in their own country. That is only a small proportion of people.
I will not try to force Deputy Gilmore or anybody else in terms of what they believe. I always tend to take account of what happens internationally. These schemes operate very well and have been in existence for a long time. I agree there is the difficulty of a backlog at the start, but if it is limited in number, that does not apply.
I agree with Deputy Gilmore regarding the various schemes, including those throughout the country. I have made many of the presentations throughout my life——
The Taoiseach has all right.
——and one notes on the night that half of the people being honoured do not turn up. That says something, but it is not that these awards are unimportant. The people concerned are not available on the night for one reason or another and they ask other people to collect the award on their behalf.
Being recognised by a president of a country by a system set up by the political system is a different issue. It does not take from the republican values because it happens in other countries.
This issue has been raised by many people. I did not start this debate, which has been ongoing for a long time, and I am sure I will not finish it. It is a view of at least a considerable number of people that there should be a fitting system of recognising the abilities of inspirational people in an Irish context mainly and not international figures. We can have the discussion to examine if anyone can devise a system and if we can do it, so be it, and similarly if we cannot do it.
Regarding the Taoiseach's opening reply concerning his correspondence with the various party leaders, I apologise for the lateness of my response but it is in his pigeon hole since this morning. Like Deputy Gilmore and, I presume, Deputy Kenny, I consulted colleagues here and externally to put together a set of views on what is proposed. I am happy to say I concur with much of what the Taoiseach said. As an Irish republican, I believe an honours system can be devised that would be wholly compatible with republican principles. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility and of course it can be done. I would see it as creating recognition awards. I looked at An Agreed Programme for Government and noted there was a commitment included. Deputy Ryan, a co-signatory of the programme for Government, should be equally aware. Strangely enough, we have been discussing this issue for 35 minutes and it has not been alluded to at all. The programme states the Government is committed to introducing what are described as national presidential citizens awards. Is this the awards or honours scheme to which the Taoiseach is referring? What does that commitment in the programme represent? Is that what he is teasing out with the Dáil and in correspondence recently? Perhaps he can throw some light on the matter.
There are real concerns, to some of which the Taoiseach referred in his deposition, his letter and replies this afternoon. Will he again confirm that the selection process would have to be independent of the influence of the Government? It would have to be either a commission or panel, as the Taoiseach referred to it, which would clearly have to be seen to be independent. The address to the proposed recipients would refer to exemplary service to Ireland and their respective communities. God forbid that anybody would be considered for one of these awards on the basis of his or her elected position in this House as regards the negotiation of Government support following a general election. I notice Deputy Finian McGrath is to be the next questioner. I am sure he will be interested to hear what the Taoiseach has to say in that respect.
That is about the only thing Deputy McGrath will get out of the Government.
He has got everything he is going to get, whatever it is.
I have indicated and asked the Taoiseach to note that we will participate in the all-party consultative process, with a view to working with him in devising a system that would be appropriate and command the required respect and support of each citizen.
I was not in any way being critical as regards replying to the letter. That is not what I meant.
In reply to Deputy Ó Caoláin, it would have to be an independent and open system. Those with an interest in this issue, including persons involved in big award schemes, say it would have to be a transparent system, as otherwise it would not work. It would have to be open to everybody, something that may be won or achieved by anybody. As such, it would be in line with a republican ethos. An Agreed Programme for Government refers to a national presidential citizen's award, as recommended in the active citizenship report. Such an award could be incorporated but it was intended to be entirely different from the State awards system. It has been noted that there is a long list of awards around the country and the report recommended that the national presidential citizen's award be co-ordinated in some way, bearing in mind the hundreds of schemes in place. It made a detailed recommendation, as drawn up by Ms Mary Davis and her colleagues earlier this year, but it is not the same.
For my part, I brought forward a detailed document the last time based on the previous discussions. I emphasise that while this is not the forum to go into detail on a proposed initiative, it would be prudent to let the outline of a scheme emerge organically from inter-party discussions and then see what would be possible. If it was considered that it would not be possible, it would be added to the list of efforts made since 1930.
I thank——
The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information rather than impart it. If Members want to impart information, I suggest they make a speech somewhere or other or send a letter. I call Deputy Finian McGrath.
I do not know why the Ceann Comhairle is reminding me of that. I am just going to ask a couple of questions of the Taoiseach.
I was referring to all Members.
Yes. I thank the Taoiseach for the very positive response to the question. I raised this issue during the term of the previous Dáil. Should any awards system not be based on democratic and republican principles? One option would be to model it on the French scheme, whereby the authorities award citizens nationally and internationally but retain respect for those citizens and the democratic and republican tradition in France. I ask the Taoiseach to consider this approach.
Will the Taoiseach recognise the number of people who are investing valuable time and significant sums of money in the voluntary and community sector? I know of many individuals in and outside this country who have invested millions of euro to the benefit of disadvantaged children on the north side of Dublin. The Taoiseach will be aware of this and has mentioned it in his responses so far. Will he include such people, in addition to artists and sportspersons, in any honour system that is developed? It is important that we do not forget their valuable contribution.
A system of national recognition would not involve an award system such as that associated with conferring on an individual the freedom of a city or some other civic award. It would be directed towards people who do extraordinary voluntary and community work in addition to those involved in music and the arts. One should have an open mind on the matter. I urge all Members to support the proposal because, as the Taoiseach stated, we are talking about it since 1930.
On Deputy Finian McGrath's first question, the French system is good, has worked well and has been in operation for a long time. In this regard, one should bear in mind that France is a republic. Its system is associated with the political system yet retains its independence. It is easy enough to see how one can build a system around such a concept, and doing so would not present a difficulty for us. I agree with the Deputy that our system should be open to every citizen involved in any service to mankind, including service to one's community.
I agree most with Deputy Finian McGrath's last point. Those who have been involved with award schemes, be they county-based or sectoral, have told me they like their own schemes and the associated annual events. Nobody will ever need to change this but one must acknowledge there is a big difference between a county or organisational award scheme, associated with the arts, sport or another field, and one that confers national recognition. It is an entirely different concept. We must really decide whether we want an award scheme that, without conferring titles, recognises people in designated categories who do extraordinary work, provide exceptional services, achieve outstanding results, earn international distinction or make an inspirational contribution to a community. We must decide whether it is a good idea to recognise these people by putting together an independent scheme with an arbitration committee. Recognising the scheme in the Constitution is not the difficult matter; the challenge lies in deciding whether the scheme would get caught up in political argy-bargy. If we want to go ahead with it, I will be happy to try to facilitate it, but if not, I will understand.
How can we avoid politicising the issue? The national lottery and the dormant accounts fund were supposed to be means by which funding would be provided to voluntary, community and local organisations and that was supposed to be done on a non-political basis and open to everybody, yet we all know that both processes have become highly politicised, down to the letter appearing a day beforehand in the pigeonholes of Government Deputies to give them advance notice to be out with the good news to the recipients. How do we avoid a situation where if there is a national awards scheme, Government Deputies do not get a letter 24 hours in advance telling them the Government has decided to nominate or propose to the President that they get one of these awards?
Having been on both sides of this House, I am not sure how I would solve that one because there is a consistency in that regard whoever is in government. An awards scheme would be an entirely different system. What happens in other countries and what would have to happen here is that a panel would undertake the task. That is the only way it could be done to ensure the system is fair. If it was seen as party political or favourable to the Government of the day or to some sector of society, it would not stand up. In so far as we have award schemes — there are many such schemes — they cannot be criticised for that. If the political system is involved, it would not be criticised either.
