Friday 30 October 2009

Heraldically Sixty Years Late?

.
A Chairde,

The 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Ireland and the State’s departure from the then British Commonwealth of Nations in April 1949 went unmarked by any official ceremony earlier this year.

However, despite all the new arrangements brought about by the 1998 Belfast Agreements that utterly transformed the often fractious relationship between the peoples and nations of this archipelago, it appears that some unfinished heraldic business remains.

Although this transformation has been very positive and indeed, excellent political relations now exist between the sovereign governments in London and Dublin, and on the island of Ireland, the enormous problems caused by political symbolism and official nomenclature in the past must be fully appreciated by all concerned.

For example, royal, civic or official heraldic symbolism is generally reflective of a claimed position of governance, sovereignty or territorial integrity. Therefore, in Northern Ireland a great deal of effort and thought has successfully created a shared or neutral symbolism for the insignia of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The political focus over the past two decades has been on the resolution of the northern conflict and rightly so, including the ending of the Republic’s territorial claim over the North. Only now in these more enlightened times can some attention be paid to the unresolved heraldic matter between London and Dublin.

Independent Ireland adopted the ancient heraldic symbol of Ireland—Azure a Harp Or Stringed Argent and indeed, just over two decades later in 1945 it was registered with the Chief Herald of Ireland as the Arms of Ireland.

The [British] Royal Arms remained unchanged after Irish independence in 1922 as the King remained constitutionally Ireland’s head of state until 1949, however, without any domestic function in Éire after 1936. A point which has cast some doubt over the legality of the functions of Ulster King of Arms between 1936 and 1943.

However, a provision of the Ireland Act, 1949 enacted by the UK Parliament has not been given heraldic expression even after sixty years. Section 1 (1) of that Act states ‘It is hereby recognised and declared that the part of Ireland heretofore known as Eire ceased, as from the eighteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, to be part of His Majesty’s dominions.’

But the [British] Royal Arms still contain the Harp representing dominion or sovereignty over the island of Ireland. A cynic might suggest that such heraldic tardiness smacks of irredentism, however, with the devolution of powers to Stormont almost complete, maybe the time is right to replace the Harp with the above agreed symbol of the Northern Ireland Assembly—a flax plant with six flowers representing the six counties of Northern Ireland.

There are, of course, legislative, historic, political and heraldic precedents for such a change in the [British] Royal Arms with the dropping of the claim to the sovereignty over France in 1801 and the removal of the Arms of France, and the removal of the Arms of Kingdom of Hanover in 1837.

A good neighbourly gesture now by the UK perhaps?

Michael Merrigan, MA, FGSI

Sunday 4 October 2009

SPC System Under Review by County Council


A Chairde,

Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council is currently undetaking a review of the workings of its Strategic Policy Committees (SPCs) and I have been invited to submit my views. I have been a Sectoral Representative member of various SPCs since their introduction (1998), however, most of that time was spent as a member of the Culture, Community Development and Amenities SPC.

Hereunder, please find some random thoughts on the process.

1. The SPCs and especially, the expertise of the Sectoral Representatives, are under utilised in the formulation of policy documents.

2. The policy documents discussed / considered by the SPCs are merely 'rubber-stamped' by the SPCs with some slight amendment.

3. The current structure of the meetings of the SPCs unfortunately considerably hampers real functionality.

4. The commitment shown by the elected representatives to the SPC process varies widely and is generally a cause of concern.

5. The operation of a process that barely holds the required quorum seriously undermines the whole SPC concept.

6. The organisation of the agendas for SPCs reinforces the perception of irrelevance and process for process-sake.

7. The front-loading of the meetings with slideshows and presentations from officials hampers any real policy debate or scrutiny.

8. Agenda items should be arranged to front-load strategic policy matters rather than ordinary reports or occasional updates.

9. The lack of any feedback whatsoever from Council on any policy decisions or proposals is disappointing and damaging to morale.

10. The lack of any business referred to the SPC by Council or indeed, by the CPG reinforces the perception of function deficit.

11. The SPCs should formulate a work-programme in conjunction with officials for each coming year.

12. The SPC members should be encouraged to initiate policy by proposals and debate.

13. The use of sub-committees of the SPCs to produce policy documents / proposals should be encouraged and supported.

14. A 'Public Petition Process' which would facilitate the presentation of policy ideas by non-SPC members should be considered.

15. Reserving one Sectoral Representative place on each SPC for Student/Youth (Transition Year?) inclusion should be considered.

16. The production and publication of SPC Annual Reports should be considered and such should include future work-programmes.

17. The operation of a public comment line on the Council's Website dealing with strategic policy matters could inform the SPCs.

18. SPC Agendas should include an item specifically catering for Sectoral Representative Business to value and recognise input.

19. The electronic circulation of policy documents in advance of the SPC meetings would inform debate and decisions.

20. The right of a Sectoral Representative to attend, as an observer, the meetings of other SPCs should be upheld.

21. The parameters of the areas under the aegis of each SPC should be clearly mapped-out for each member.

22. Joint meetings of SPCs should be encouraged where appropriate to deal with matters/areas of mutual concern.

23. An information booklet containing the information on each SPC's function, details of officials concerned etc should be produced.

24. A council official should be designated as the Sectoral Representative Liaison Officer for each SPC to advise and assist the SRs.

25. The contribution of the Sectoral Representatives to the SPC process is largely under-valued or simply overlooked.


Michael Merrigan, MA, FGSI
General Secretary
Genealogical Society of Ireland