Letter from Mr Mattingly to the Secretary
for Appointments, 10 Downing Street (December 1998)
Thank you for your letter of 13 November, which
I have received from the British Embassy in Paris. I enclose the
signed form, indicating that I do not wish my name to be considered
for the proposed award mentioned in your letter.
As I said to Mme Bouron of the British Embassy
in Paris when she telephoned me recently, I am grateful to the
Prime Minister and to whoever put my name forward, but it would
not be compatible with my views on the current honours system
for me to accept an honour.
In any case, I feel that there are very many
people who are more deserving of a national honour than me. These
include many volunteers in the Ramblers' Association who, without
expecting or receiving financial or other material reward, have
done so much over so many years for the good of the community
in which they live.
For what little they are worth my views on the
current honours system are:
1. That it is far too complex, with an unnecessarily
wide range of awards.
2. That it is out of date, especially in
its reference to the British Empire. Whether we as British citizens
think it fair or not millions of people across the world associate
the British Empire (and other former European empires) with a
period of "colonialism, economic exploitation and manipulation
by stronger foreign powers" (Bishop Desmond Tutu). It would
do Britain credit to act with sensitivity to those views, especially
by ceasing to celebrate the former British Empire in its national
honours system.
3. That, however honest, open and fair government
ministers and officials are, a large-scale, government-administered
honours system offers an almost irresistible temptation to use
such a system to secure favours and suppress dissent. That temptation
would ideally be taken out of the reach of all governments, present
and future, right across the globe.
4. That (and this is my main concern) the
administration of the current honours system takes up far too
much of the valuable time of public servants. I have a high regard
for the skill and dedication of British public servants, but I
believe that skill and dedication would be better directed at
meeting the many challenges which face the country and the international
community of which it is a part, and, above all, in administering
and improving services which help people in need.
Many people deserve the national honours that
have been bestowed upon them, but hardly anyone really needs such
honours. On the other hand, there are millions of people still
in need of decent housing, employment, health care and social
services. The resources which are currently applied to administering
the national honours system would be better directed at helping
to meet the needs listed above.
There is, of course, a place for honours and
awards in all communities. People naturally feel that the work
of those who have given exceptional service to society should
be publicly acknowledged and celebrated in some way.
But it would be better for such awards to be
made, not by or through the state (except where government departments,
military and other public bodies themselves make awards to those
who have served with distinction in such departments and bodies),
but by the voluntary and commercial organisations and networks
that make up civil society.
That wouldn't be so much a question of privatising
the honours system as disestablishing it.
However, if a national, state-sponsered honours
system is felt to be necessary at all (and this question is something
which might best be put to a referendum), the number of types
of awards should be significantly reduced, and decisions on who
should be given awards should perhaps be made by a kind of "awards
jury".
That is, any such awards should be made by a
group whose membership would:
(a) be constantly changed (perhaps a third
of the membership would retire every year);
(b) be kept as confidential as possible;
and
(c) consist of a broadly-based, but as far
as possible randomly-selected, number of adult citizens from all
parts of the country.
Administration of such an honours system would
best be undertaken by a body, akin to the Electorial Reform Society,
which was widely recognised as being independent and impartial.
| 
