Memorandum by Mr David Giddings (HON 42)
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?
We do need honours, it is important to recognise
activity beneficial to society that is not recognised in other
ways. The best way to do this is the public recognition that an
honours system offers.
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?
Abolish it. Let hereditary peers call themselves
Lord etc. if they wish but do not create any more.
3. In relation to the machinery of the honours
system, what lessons may be learned from the experience of other
countries?
I do not know enough 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?
We do need honours, it is important to recognise
activity beneficial to society that is not recognised in other
ways. The best way to do this is the public recognition that an
honours system offers.
5. Can any honours system realistically reflect
all of the above?
No, that is why it is important to restrict
it to individuals who are not otherwise recognised for their contribution.
For example, top business people are already rewarded (perhaps
excessively) with money they should not get honours in addition
unless for additional service.
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?
Yes and hence always, to a certain extent, controversial.
It must depend on the definition of "values" and these
differ especially in order of importance.
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?
The primary source of recommendations should
be from those who have benefited from the persons contribution.
9. Would there be any advantage in applying
to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in
appointments to public bodies?
No unless if you really must award them just
for getting promoted to a certain level in which case they will
continue to be regarded as rewards for sycophancy.
10. What would be the advantages and disadvantages
of restricting honours to those who do voluntary work, either
full-time or part-time?
Close to the ideal but too close. There are
people who contribute above and beyond in jobs that do not give
a commensurate monetary reward.
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?
By not awarding them for doing particular jobs;
by the selection process involving ordinary people; by, to some
extent, regionalising the selection procedure. How about monitoring
by a few well respected, not too political, non U.K citizens such
as Mary Robinson, Nelson Mandela and the like.
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?
Few people realise that the British Empire in
this context signified Great Britain; it is too open to misinterpretation
as a relic of empire and should therefore be abolished. Titles,
especially due to their unearned use by hereditary peers, are
similarly tainted and should also go. There is a presumption that
many of those deserving of honours are those self-effacing people
who "also served" which hardly makes such pushy "in
your face" titles appropriate.
13. Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors
should continue to be given the prefix "Right Honourable"?
No, they are no more and no less honourable
than the lady who cleans the toilets.
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?
Difficult, I am not sure about this one.
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?
The committees should reflect the community
they represent. If for the U.K 6-7% should come from ethnic minorities,
if for London then 25-30%. This is one of the reasons to regionalisation
of the committees. Women should be 40-60%.
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?
Money, status and a feeling of doing something
useful provide all that is required elsewhere, why should public
administration be any different. What honours must not be is some
replacement for paying people properly, that will just discredit
them. Honours should be for service over and above the persons
job, not for doing that job well.
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?
No, never, absolutely not for a particular service.
For example, the armed forces should have the same chance of receiving
a medal for courage for a particular action as a civilian, although
they can be expected, due to their profession, (hopefully) to
have more opportunities for earning such medals than civilians.
18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social/employment status and the class
of honour received?
Yes. If we cannot then we should admit it and
abolish honours entirely. Unless seen to be awarded fairly for
the service rather than for who the person is then, as now, they
will lose all credibility.
19. Is there an inevitable conflict of interest
when civil servants are the main judges in assessing whether other
civil servants receive honours?
Yes.
20. Should there be an increase in the number
of independent outsiders who sit on the honours committees? Should
the committees be made 100% independent, perhaps by banning all
members of such committees from ever receiving an honour?
Yes, see above regarding foreign outsiders.
Members should not be able to receive an honour, from that particular
committee, for a period of time after leaving during which the
membership committee can be expected to have significantly changed;
say 5-10 years.
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?
Yes. This is the wrong use of honours.
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?
Yes.
23. Has respect for the honours system been
diminished by recent disclosures about its operation?
Yes.
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?
No. At least not for me but then otherwise I
would not be taking the time to write this. Which is, of course,
a issue regarding how much submissions to your committee reflect
the population.
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?
When honours are announced encourage the media
to also explain how they are awarded. Easy to read details on
a website.
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?
Too heavily biased towards departments. All
should come from the public, remembering that members of departments
are also members of the public.
February 2004
| 
