The establishment of an honours list has been debated quietly by the political establishment for many years. But successive governments shied away from the issue because of a republican ethic that borrowed heavily from the United States model and the possibility they might be accused of "aping their betters" across the water. But, as the State and its citizens grew in wealth and confidence, something approaching all-party consensus emerged on the issue in recent years.
The all-party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution has finally given voice to that development. Its "Report on the President", published today, breaks new ground in recommending that the President should have the power to confer titles of honour in strictly controlled circumstances. The granting of honours should, according to the committee, be beyond party politics. Honours might be conferred by the President, following consultation with the Council of State, to individuals of exceptional stature. Such a system, according to the committee, would give Irish society a stimulus to achieve excellence and allow the State to reciprocate, in terms of bestowing honours on individuals in other countries.
In making this recommendation, the all-party Oireachtas committee under the chairmanship of Mr Brian Lenihan TD, steps beyond the framework of change set by the 1995 Constitution Review Group chaired by Dr T K Whitaker. It also rejects a number of its recommendations, while endorsing others. The committee advocates the easing of restrictions on nominating a candidate to contest the presidency, in line with the Whitaker report. The experiences of Dana (Mrs Rosemary Scallon) and Mr Derek Nally in last year's election, when they had to seek nominations from local authorities, underlined the need for a more democratic process. The all-party committee has suggested that 10,000 citizens should have the right to make a nomination, in legally controlled circumstances, as happens in Finland.
It rejected the view that there should be little or no change in the qualifying age of a candidate. The committee proposes that the age limit should be reduced from 35 to 18 years. Other possible changes considered - and rejected - by the committee were that the President should lose the absolute power to refuse a dissolution of the Dail and that she or he should have a role in the formation of a new government. In addressing the question: "Should the President continue to be obliged to make a religious declaration?" the all-party committee decided the matter could be left to the discretion of the elected candidate. An affirmation or a declaration might be made by the President, as happened in Iceland and in Malta. Finally, the committee rejected advice that the President might be formally styled "Head of State", even though the reason for not doing so in the Constitution was obviated by the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, which removed all functions in relation to external affairs from the British monarch. The status quo - the President as first citizen - was to be preserved. It was to be expected that disagreements on both form and content would emerge between the Constitutional Review Group and the Oireachtas Committee of serving politicians on these issues. But the differences are not substantial. And, in any event, the Government will decide the nature of any future referendum.