| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): The Secretary of State knows that the Governments of the United States and Canada have been as anxious as everyone else to achieve greater co-operation and European contribution to defence in NATO. He knows that we have been negotiating for years, trying to use NATO's capabilities and planning process to enable Europeans to make such a contribution themselves. That could have been achieved in NATO. Who decided that it could not? Was it the Americans and the Canadians or our European partners?
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my statement. I made it clear that the process is being taken forward in both NATO--NATO recognises the importance of rapidly deployable forces--and the EU. A consistent planning process will be available to both in order to achieve our objective: no duplication of assets and resources.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Why should neutral Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland be more closely involved with the decision making on whether to use or deploy the force than NATO Iceland,
Norway, Turkey, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland? Is not the proposal deeply divisive for European security and thoroughly retrograde? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the neutrals to sign up to the mutual security provisions of the Brussels treaty?
Mr. Hoon: Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman's observation, representatives of all the countries that he mentioned sat around a table on Tuesday offering their forces as part of the process. Indeed, Turkey has made a substantial contribution and indicated how vigorously it wished to participate. I am afraid that the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument simply does not work. With regard to the neutral states, they have many of the forces that are useful for the range of Petersberg tasks and precisely the kind of humanitarian work envisaged at Petersberg. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): The Secretary of State was being utterly candid when he said that the initiative was only one step in the process on the road ahead. Can he say how long he thinks it will be before we move from national troops committed to a European corps, to a European army with troops regardless of their nationality?
Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that we are not discussing a European army. The process was begun by the previous Conservative Administration and carried on by the Government.
Honours and Decorations
4.31 pm
Mr. Fraser Kemp (Houghton and Washington, East): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the award of certain honours and decorations; and for connected purposes.
The Bill will replace the arcane panoply of honours currently available, from knighthoods to baronetcies, from the Order of St. Patrick to the Thistle, the Star of India, the Order of the Indian Empire, and various others. Some of those are still technically in existence, but they have not been awarded in decades. One of them, incidentally, is available only to members of one religious faith in Britain. That is hardly a sign of a multi-faith nation or a society that cherishes many different faiths.
I shall concentrate on the 90 per cent. of honours that are awarded, usually twice yearly--the honours of the British empire, which are given in three categories. They often seem to be awarded on the grounds of a person's rank, occupation or status in society. Such an outdated system does no credit to a nation that has just entered a new millennium. Any nation, and Britain in particular, should strive to break down social divisions, not reinforce them by clinging to an honours system that is based on an empire which, whether we like it or not, ceased to exist several decades ago.
I have no problem with some form of formal recognition to celebrate and reward people who make society a better place, and who work unstintingly for others, often with no reward to themselves. I agree that those people should be recognised, but that recognition should be based purely on their contribution to society.
I pose a series of questions to the House with regard to the current honours system. How are we to quantify public service, or judge one person's contribution to society as more important than that of someone else? Why should we honour a first-rate diplomat and ambassador about whom many of us have not heard, rather than an exceptional nurse who has looked after people throughout a professional career?
Why should one grade of honour be awarded rather than another? How can we make a judgment about television presenters or celebrities, and whether they should receive an honour of one grade rather than another? The same applies to authors--ultimately, a literary judgment would have to be made, which I am not sure the honours unit, the Prime Minister or anyone else is qualified to make. How are such gradations to be made? We need to examine that closely.
Many people are often offended when an industrialist, for example, who might or might not have donated money to a political party, ends up with a much higher grade honour than tireless charity workers and many others who work so hard. Such judgments are arbitrary within the current system, make no sense and offend many people. The system is not enhanced by its gradations; indeed, they often bring the entire system into disrepute and confusion.
I want to see an across-the-board honour rather than honours that reflect the past. We are in the 21st century, and we should be moving on. We could look to other
Commonwealth nations, such as Canada, Australia and Jamaica, which have abolished the British honours system. Australia has replaced the various honours that were available with one simple Order of Australia. Whether someone worked in the outback as a postman for 40 years or was Prime Minister, he is proud to receive the Order of Australia. We could learn much from other Commonwealth countries that have adopted a different approach.We should replace the present panoply of honours with an Order of the United Kingdom. That should be the way in which this country honours its worthiest members. I think that recipients would be proud to receive the honour. It would be awarded on the basis of what someone has done to make society a better place, irrespective of where he stands in the pecking order.
The Bill would enable the number of nominations received from the public to be increased. At present, less than 50 per cent. of the honours awarded bi-annually are the result of public nominations. We should ensure that the percentage increases. The rest of the nominations are made by a mixture of businesses, national organisations, Government Departments and the Prime Minister's office. We need radically to change the balance to ensure that nominations are made by many more people.
I accept that changes have been made, particularly in 1993. I welcome those changes, but we need to move a step further. As we enter the new millennium, I believe that the symbols of public recognition should be changed. Symbols are important because they often send out a message about the society in which we want to live. We should not tolerate systems that continue to reinforce divisions in society. I am reminded of what Barbara Castle said when she was Secretary of State for Transport.
- The most outrageous feature about the Honours System was that it reflected the system of social stratification and snobbery in this country. One of my most embarrassing jobs as a Minister was to present
- to railwaymen and other members of the lower orders
Changes have been made, as I have said, and in all sincerity I congratulate the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who made some important steps forward. The medal to which Barbara Castle was referring was one that he abolished. As far as I can ascertain, he is the only Prime Minister of the previous century to abolish an honour. The steps that he took were in the right direction, but we must ensure that we move a step further and have an honours system that is more in common with the meritocratic democracy in which we live, rather than one that is linked to the past.
Before anyone accuses me of flying in the face of history, the reality is that 99 per cent. of the honours that are awarded every year are inventions that cover about a century. Some of them have a certain mediaeval flavour about them, but in reality they were created in Queen Victoria's reign and in the early part of the 19th century. Some honours date back a number of centuries, but 99 per cent. of what we do every year date from about a century ago. We should honour those members of society who have made that contribution. This is about the honours that we represent and our values in Britain today, not those of yesteryear.
I ask the House to support the measure, as it is time for a radical overhaul. The House has come a long way since it blew the gaff on Lloyd George, who famously sold knighthoods for £10,000, baronetcies for £40,000 and peerages for about £100,000. A lot has changed since then, but we need to make sure that we change the current system, which is indefensible. I therefore ask the House to support the measure.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |