Memorandum by D A Pritchard (HON 18)
1. Does the United Kingdom need an honours
system at all? Do we need as many honours as we have now (3,000
per year)? Could we make do with, say, 10 or 100 new honours each
year?
Every country needs a system to honour those
who have excelled in their fields of expertise, bravery, social
volunteerism etc. If one chooses not to have an honour system,
does this not say that mediocrity is perfectly acceptable? As
compared to Italy or France, the UK is very stingy with its national
honors.
2. What should be done about the peerage in
light of, among other developments, the present proposals to remove
all hereditary peers from the House of Lords?
Expand it to be more inclusive, do not abandon
the traditions of the country because some feel that they are
not part of it. Instead bring them into the fold.
3. In relation to the machinery of the honours
system, what lessons may be learned from the experience of other
countries?
Sweden no longer grants orders to its own citizens
in their great quest for equality. They no longer grant titles
and no longer ennoble distinguished citizens. A Swedish Count
is a very exclusive title to have now as no more are created.
To remove the mystic regarding titles and orders it would be wiser
to grant more titles and honour in order to devalue them in the
eyes of the common man.
4. If there is to be a future for the honours
system, what should its main function be—to recognise distinction
in particular fields, to reward service, to pay tribute to those
who best represent the nation's values, or something else?
All of the above.
5. Can any honours system realistically reflect
all of the above?
Yes, but more orders need to be created such
as the Royal Order of the Red Cross for medical personnel, Order
of Arts and Letters for teachers, professors, artists and writers.
6. Are the criteria for awards well enough
known and properly understood?
No.
7. Is the award of honours bound to be subjective—"an
art rather than a science" as the Wilson Review puts it?
One can try to make it a science but in the
end it is still going to be influenced by the members of a committees
own life experiences, prejudices etc. By making the committee
diverse one can help to make it more fair, but it will never be
perfect.
8. What role should be played in the honours
system by peer groups, professional, business and trade union
bodies and academic institutions? Should they be asked to provide,
monitor and keep up to date the criteria used in recommending
candidates for honours?
Yes, but they should not be given too much power
as these groups will have their own agendas.
9. Would there be any advantage in applying
to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in
appointments to public bodies?
Yes. You would eliminate some of criticism of
nepotism, cronyism and classism.
10. What would be the advantages and disadvantages
of restricting honours to those who do voluntary work, either
full-time or part-time?
You would eliminate the incentive of public
officials to work extra hard for years on end for a 100 pound
bauble. Productivity would decrease.
11. The Wilson Review proposes that "in
the interests of equity there should be equal access to honours
for all UK citizens". How could this be best achieved?
Increase the numbers of specialised orders as
well as create a catch all national order.
12. Are the title, and the concept, of an
"Order of the British Empire" now outdated, as the Wilson
Review suggests? If this is the case, what should replace the
old Order—the Order of Britain, the Order of the United
Kingdom or some other name? Should titles such as "Dame"
and "Sir", "Lord", "Lady", "Baron"
etc be abolished?
The Order of the British Empire should be retained
under the name of the "Order of George V" This order
could serve as the catch all order. No extra expense need to drastically
change the medal dies or make new ribband. Titles should not be
abolished but instead be expanded. Remember to be inclusive not
exclusive.
13. Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors
should continue to be given the prefix "Right Honourable"?
US Congressmen, Senators, State Legislators,
etc. All have the prefix of the Hon. for life. Why should the
UK have less than the US?
14. Some countries have considered creating
single categories of honours, with no divisions into classes or
ranks. Would this be a helpful move, or is it inevitable that,
to reflect different levels of achievement and contribution, various
levels of honour are required?
Is the UK a follower or a leader. Keep your
own traditions alive. Even the Legion d'Honneur has multiple classes.
Equality is not trying to reduce ones greatness so that the obscure
feel more comfortable with their mediocrity. Equality is best
shown by everyone having an equal chance at greatness and success.
15. What changes might be made to the nominations
process to improve the diversity of honours? For instance, should
there be an increase in the proportion of women and minority ethnic
people on the Honours Committees?
Yes! Exactly.
16. What are the effects, if any, of the honours
system on public administration in the UK? Is it a motivating
or a demotivating force?
A motivating force.
17. Is it fair that civil servants, diplomats
and those in the armed forces have a much better chance of getting
an honour than other people?
Life is not fair. But if they will work harder
for the public good for a trinket to put on their tuxedo than
the public is well served. In the US almost all honours are for
government employees. The Presidential Medal of Freedom and a
few others are the only ones open to the citizenry, not many of
these are granted.
18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social/employment status and the class
of honour received?
By having a diverse open minded committee make
the choices.
19. Is there an inevitable conflict of interest
when civil servants are the main judges in assessing whether other
civil servants receive honours?
Of course there is! Why would anyone with an
understanding of human nature even ask such a self evident question.
20. Should there be an increase in the number
of independent outsiders who sit on the honours committees? Should
the committees be made 100 percent independent, perhaps by banning
all members of such committees from ever receiving an honour?
Yes the entire committee should be independent.
Give them an honour first and then seat them on the committee.
That way they will not feel cheated and become bitter.
21. Should people who serve the state and
the public well in paid employment be recognised by higher pay
rather than the award of honours?
It is much cheaper to give honours than raise
salaries. The Government and therefore the people save money by
granting orders and decorations to public servants.
22. Would it be sensible, as the Wilson Review
proposes, to cut down the number of orders of honors so that state
servants have to compete on similar terms with everybody else?
No. Increase the number of categories and types
of orders granted.
23. Has respect for the honours system been
diminished by recent disclosures about its operation?
There will always be those who do not care for
the status quo. If they abolish the honours system the malcontents
who fancy themselves as enlightened democrats will simply move
on to a new raison d'etre.
24. In 2000 the Wilson Review paper on Transparency
concluded "the honours system is not a live issue at the
moment. Nor is there much evidence of public dissatisfaction with
the system". Is this judgement still accurate?
Yes.
25. Is the general public aware of the honours
system and the part they could play in it through nominations?
No.
26. How should awareness of the system be
raised?
Public awareness campaign.
27. What is your view of the present system
by which roughly half of all honours are nominated directly by
the public, with the rest being generated by departments?
A very good start.
28. Should there be a higher proportion of
public nominations, or should the system be fundamentally changed
so that all honours are awarded as a result of such nominations?
What might be the disadvantages of such an "all-nominations"
system?
It would be much like an election. Those with
pretty smiles would win. Very unfair considering the really smart
people are on a whole rather ugly.
29. In the light of the full implementation
in 2005 of the Freedom of Information Act, should there be more
openness about the process by which recommendations for honours
are produced? Should full citations be published?
Yes.
30. Isn't there a danger that more openness
will lead to personal embarrassments or a series of timid recommendations?
All candidates for PUBLIC honours should be
well screened and scrutinised for embarrassing behaviors, opinions
etc. To nominate a Rastafarian Poet for an imperial order seems
like a well designed disaster. To nominate him for an Order of
Arts and Letters seems much more appropriate and one which he
would accept.
31. Is there evidence of political abuse of
the honours system? If there is abuse, what mechanisms might be
put in place to reduce it?
Has everyone forgotten David Lloydd George?
No honours system will ever be as corrupt and dishonest as his.
Transparency has the same effect on corruption as bright light
has on roaches.
32. What role, if any, should Parliament,
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales play
in the honours system?
They should have their own regional Orders.
Just like Canada.
33. The United States Congress awards a Medal
of Honor. Could Parliament do something similar?
The US Medal of Honor is a very exclusive award
with very strict guidelines. If you mean to grant an order in
the name of the Parliament, I suppose that this is possible as
long as this power is delegated by the sovereign.
34. The Wilson Review (in its paper on Oversight,
paragraph 72) suggested a wider independent role for the Honours
Scrutiny Committee in "conducting periodic checks into the
processes by which candidates' names are generated, assessed and
ranked and how closely the lists reflect the distributional pattern
set by the Government of the day". Would such an expansion
of the Committee's role be helpful?
Yes.
February 2004
| 
