Memorandum by Mr John Theobald (HON 26)
RESPONSE TO HONOURS SYSTEM QUESTIONS
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?
Yes, the country does need an honours system;
it is not anachronistic as some claim but the recognition of achievement
by the nation. The anachronism is the "Empire" tag;
although it is not immediately clear as to what to me what it
should be replaced with "United Kingdom" perhaps. However
I would ask the committee to retain "Empire" rather
than introduce a trendy re-brand!
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?
The whole issue of the peerage has been handled
very badly by the Government. . I would like to see the following
for appointments to the House of Lords:
(a) A fully appointed House of Lords, but
with the term restricted to 10 years or the age of 75.
(b) Prospective members of the House of Lords
should be divided into political and independent; political Lords
to be appointed by a cross-party committee of MP's and independent
Lords to be appointed by an independent committee representing
the broad spectrum of British society.
(c) Non-hereditary Lords should not be awarded
ancient title (Baron, Viscount etc) but should just have "Lord"
as a title.
As far as the hereditary peerage is concerned,
they should be permitted to sit in the Lords if appointed by (a)
or (b) above.
Hereditary peers should be allowed to keep their
titles, and the ability of the Crown to appoint a new hereditary
peer should be maintained as the ultimate acknowledgement of an
individuals contribution to the country.
3. In relation to the machinery of the honours
system, what lessons may be learned from the experience of other
countries?
I don't know enough about other countries honours
systems to comment.
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?
The question should not be phrased as "if
there is to be a future", it should be "the future honours
system". Yes all of the above should be its function with
the inclusion of "outstanding achievement".
5. Can any honours system realistically reflect
all of the above?
Yes, why not?
6. Are the criteria for awards well enough
known and properly understood?
The answer to this is "probably not"
again I feel the honours have been trivialised by high profile
"tabloid" honours and the public perception of criteria
is to an extent influenced by this.
7. Is the award of honours bound to be subjective—"an
art rather than a science" as the Wilson Review puts it?
I have not read the Wilson Review but I don't
see how it can be anything other than subjective, we will have
to accept this and work within these bounds.
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?
I think this is should be one of the most important
aspects of the future honours system. As a Chartered Engineer
and Fellow and Member of a number of professional and learned
institutions I would whole heartedly support an enhanced role
for all the above.
9. Would there be any advantage in applying
to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in
appointments to public bodies?
I am not a public servant so can't comment,
however it is important not to be too prescriptive in applying
criteria.
10. What would be the advantages and disadvantages
of restricting honours to those who do voluntary work, either
full-time or part-time?
A strange question, I can't see any advantage
and can see the disadvantage of not recognising the contribution
of the many people in other walks of life.
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?
Access is equal at present as I understand the
system, however the mechanism is not that well understood. Perhaps
a simplification of the system, for example if I wanted to propose
"Jane Bloggs" for an outstanding contribution to whatever
then the system for doing this should be as simple as possible-an
e-mail or a letter!
12. Is 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 Orders—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?
See my comments to question 1 and question 2.
British Empire should be replaced, either by
"Britain" or "United Kingdom". The ancient
titles should be maintained and should remain gender specific,
I think most reasonable people have no objection to gender! The
only major change I would make, is that those that all new appointments
to the House of Lords are not awarded an ancient title and should
just be Lord or Lady and not Baron etc.
13. Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors
should continue to be given the prefix "Right Honourable"?
Yes, no problem.
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?
Different levels are required; I am opposed
to a single honour category.
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?
I personally believe in a "meritocratic"
awards system; however I appreciate the difficulties in the system
appearing to be equitable. I would be opposed to quotas for women
and ethnic minorities, however if the honours committees were
composed to represent the demographics of our society it would
go a long way to improving diversity.
16. What are the effects, if any, of the honours
system on public administration in the UK? Is it a motivating
or a de-motivating force?
I am not a public servant, so cannot comment.
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?
Yes it is fair.
18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social and employment status and the class
of honour received?
It is not necessary to break this "inevitable"
link, achievement must be recognised, and if it is inevitable
that achievers have achieved a certain social and employment status
then so be it.
19. Is there an inevitable conflict of interest
when civil servants are the main judges in assessing whether other
civil servants receive honours?
I am not a civil servant so cannot comment.
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?
Presumably the term "outsider" is
some sort of Freudian slip! I am not in politics or public service,
so presumably I am an outsider, and yes there should be an increase
in "outsiders". Banning committee members from receiving
ever receiving an honour is unnecessary.
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?
I am not a public servant, so will not comment.
22. Would it be sensible, as the Wilson Review
proposes, to cut down the number of orders of honours so that
state servants have to compete on similar terms with everybody
else?
There does seem to be a large number of honours,
for examples different degrees of Knighthood for example. It makes
sense to maintain the military—civil divisions though. I
would like to see the following:
(a)
Combine the Most Noble Order of the Garter and Most
Ancient and Noble Order of the Thistle into one order.
(b)
Abolish the Order of Merit.
(c)
The Royal Victorian Order reduced to K(D)CVO, CVO
and MVO.
(d)
Order of the Bath, abolish GCB.
(e)
Abolish the Order of St Michael and St George.
(f)
Order of the British Empire, reduce to K(D)BE, CBE
and MBE and give it more "gravitas".
(g)
The introduction of a third category; a modern British
Medal with a simple application process and wide criteria.
(h)
Abolish the Order of Companion of Honour.
(i)
Abolish the Imperial Service Order.
(j)
Maintain the Knight Bachelor.
23. Has respect for the honours system been
diminished by recent disclosures about its operation?
There are two issues here, firstly the system
isn't perfect and could be improved and secondly a hostile media.
The combination of the two has led to the hysteria surrounding
recent disclosures. Personally I feel a little uncomfortable about
the make up of the committees and would like to see more "outsiders"
as you call them, on the committee.
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?
A fair judgement, the dissatisfaction that I
experience comes with what I call "tabloid" or "celebrity"
honours.
25. Is the general public aware of the honours
system and the part they could play in it through nominations?
Generally not, but the information about the
process is viable and accessible.
26. How should awareness of the system be
raised?
I am not too concerned about this, if people
want to get involved in the process they will. An attempt to raise
awareness has all the hallmarks of something that could backfire!
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?
I am happy with this.
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?
50:50 is acceptable, there is no radical change
needed.
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?
I do not think this is an issue.
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?
There is perhaps a perception rather than evidence
I would say. Perhaps there could be a quota of political honours
to be awarded on the nomination of the Prime Minister.
32. What role, if any, should Parliament,
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales play
in the honours system?
None, the honours would then become too political.
33. The United States Congress awards a Medal
of Honor. Could Parliament do something similar?
Unnecessary in my opinion, parliamentarians
have the opportunity to recommend honours through the honours
system. It could also been see as being too political.
34. The Wilson Review 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?
Sounds reasonable.
February 2004
| 
