Memorandum by John Burt (HON 45)
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 an honour system is of value but there are
far far too many and they are being cynically manipulated by the
current Government.(perhaps ALL governments but this one is being
particularly disingenuous) For example winning the World Rugby
Cup (in fact anything) is honour enough without having other honours
bestowed. Similarly why the hell are pop stars and businessmen
with millions or billions being rewarded with yet more rewards?.
Surely honours are for the otherwise unrecognised people who have
significantly and selflessly contributed to society.
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?
Again it is simple political manipulation. This
was a "hidden" manifesto commitment. "Hidden"
because it was never talked about—just like fox hunting.
In my experience the majority of the population neither knew nor
cared about who sat in the House of Lords. They cared about the
NHS, Education and Taxes and that was all that was talked about
on the doorstep and TV. Who I wonder would bother to pay for the
full manifesto to discover just what a party is actually up to?
As a graduate of politics and constitution it
is my honest opinion that the hereditary peers—there through
accident of birth—actually exercised an important check
and balance on the Government of the day. Actually untainted by
politics in the main This is proved time and time again in history.
In general they did this very effectively and
sensibly and to the benefit of the United Kingdom. There is an
old adage—"don't fix it if it ain't broke". Tampering
with anything can have unexpected effects. Tampering with something
which works can be disastrous and that is what I predict will
now happen. As for "people's peers" Well what a sham.
Yet another opportunity lost. It is all very well to place carefully
selected and very clever people in the HoL. Unfortunately many
clever people lack an important attribute—common sense!
3. In relation to the machinery of the honours
system, what lessons may be learned from the experience of other
countries?
In short nothing. Ours is the Mother of Parliaments
proved over hundreds of years. Most countries aspired to our system.
The Americans with their usual cack-handedness cocked it up. They
have TWO elected houses which usually have different political
composition and consequent endless political wrangling. That is
also true in other democracies. America liked our grammar schools
so Labour abolished them, they liked our constitution but Tony
seems determined to ditch it and follow them on that as well.
I really do wish he'd emigrate and take all his USphiles with
him! As for the rest of the honours system. It used to be good
and is still the envy of the world. It should be retained but
revert to its real purpose—to reward the truly good instead
of political, or politically advantageous, favourites.
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?
1. To reward genuine selfless service to
others—not service actually undertaken or designed to promote
the individual's own standing in the world. For example I am aware
of North East builder (now dead) whose houses were all leasehold
with the rents going to a charitable foundation he established.
It was common knowledge that his purpose in doing this was to
get a knighthood. I'm sure it still happens.
2. To recognise the otherwise unrecognised-real
community tribute to low paid but selfless people on whom we all
rely.
3. Distinction yes—but absolutely
top class distinction. For example the head of a Civil Service
or Local Authority, or other public authority should NOT receive
such an award almost as of right—just for getting there.
Having worked at a very senior level in Local Government for example
I have known a few outstanding individuals (for example the late
Jack Longland, Derbyshire Director of Education in the 60's) but
the majority reached their position simply through political favouritism
or because there were no real competitors at the time. I've known
some very inadequate Directors of this or that and some who actually
tried to press the right buttons to get a knighthood. When that
worked it stank—and seriously upset those in the know! I
won't name any because they are still alive.(I'm not jealous—I
was never likely to get an honour because I spoke my mind). I'm
sure that happens in other fields.
4. For outstanding achievement. The award
to Helen McArthur for example was justified. She achieved a world
first. That to Clive Woodward and the English team, (much as I
am pleased by their achievement) and other athletes who win gold
medals I'm not at all sure about and believe that this is simple
political manipulation to win votes and appear "with it"
and in tune.
5. Can any honours system realistically reflect
all of the above?
Yes but not perfectly.
6. Are the criteria for awards well enough
known and properly understood?
I think they used to be but not any more. Or
maybe they are because it is now possible to predict many before
they happen!!! I don't know anyone (apart from politicians) who
would know how to put someone forward for an honour.
7. Is the award of honours bound to be subjective—"an
art rather than a science" as the Wilson Review puts it?
I think it is bound to be subjective to a degree.
But it is possible to make it less subjective by creating a genuine
framework of essential criteria. If you don't know then I think
that demonstrates that there is a general lack of knowledge about
how it works anyway—even at political level!
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?
Not at all sure about that. Such bodies have
inherent self interest and the "blue eyed boy" and "old
school tie" syndromes are bound to operate. Of course they
OUGHT to know who really does merit an award in their own ranks
so they should have some say—but only for their own ranks.
But then again there is the phenomenon of the "waiting list"—"It's
Joe's turn this year—he retires next year". That must
be guarded against and the nominations should then be judged against
all other nominations
9. Would there be any advantage in applying
to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in
appointments to public bodies?
How would I know? Those criteria are unknown
to me or the majority of the population—just a few Civil
Servants I would guess—so I can't judge.
10. What would be the advantages and disadvantages
of restricting honours to those who do voluntary work, either
full-time or part-time?
— The whole honours system would be
wrecked.
— This I think assumes that peerages
would no longer be bestowed and the HoL would become a fully elected
body. So far as I am aware that hasn't yet been decided so this
is not currently an option.
— People of real distinction in their
own fields would never receive an honour. I think that would be
a bad thing. I doubt that the motivations of most such people
have anything whatever to do with trying to receive an honour—other
than peer recognition—but I think that there is room to
reward real achievers who are a credit to the UK.
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 real merit only (for whatever reason) . Any
"loading" in favour of black or female individuals is
in itself discriminatory and should not be pursued. If it is then
I am quite sure that it will be obvious and the British people
will lose all faith in the honours system. They don't have much
faith in it now given the very clear political bias—and
the obvious bias of a Government trying to appear "hip".
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 titles are historic and unique. They are
part of what makes us British. They should NOT be abolished. Abolishing
them will make the country rather more bland internationally.
It would be akin to knocking down the Tower of London to build
an office block!
They are the one area of the honours system
which the public understands—when they are bestowed on known
personalities rather than politicians (and even then some such
bestowals are appreciated and the purpose understood and applauded).
British Empire—not sure. Again it is historic
a reminder of our past (which I accept may not be distinguished
in relation to empire!). The detractors to the title seem to be
far left or from previous colonies. But then former colonies which
still have the Queen as head of state are pleased that the honours
system includes them. OK it is an anachronism. I would suggest
Order of the Commonwealth but that won't work because such could
not be bestowed to citizens of Commonwealth countries which do
not have the Queen as head of state.
What about Order Brittanica? Or does that have
the disadvantage of appearing to include Eire? It would unfortunately
produce COB, MOB and OOB but that could be shortened to CB MB
OB
13. Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors
should continue to be given the prefix "Right Honourable"?
Many are clearly NOT honourable. Only Senior
Ministers become Privy Councillors and only those in the Government
of the day partake in the business of the Privy Council. The problem
is that the title is held for life.
I think that it is OK for serving ministers
but should be lost 5 years after removal from office.
EXCEPT that outstanding and respected politicians
(and even I concede that there are a few) should be created Privy
councilors for life and retain the title.
The mechanism for achieving that would need
to be worked out and must involve agreement between political
parties and the HoL and possibly some independents. There should
be power to remove the right to the title and membership of the
Council in the event of conviction or serious scandal which would
undermine the standing of the Privy Council.
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?
I think the present system might be a little
cumbersome but following other countries examples is usually a
mistake. Minor tinkering only is required to make it more understandable.
I think the distinctions of CBE OBE and MBE are totally misunderstood
so maybe a single honour could replace all three. I don't know
how the award of each of these levels is decided, I even had to
check which was the highest and lowest, and I doubt anyone does.
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 have already commented on this. Membership
of Honours Committees should be on merit only according to the
laid down criteria. Women and ethnic minorities should achieve
their rightful place on merit alone—not on ethnicity or
sex. Any "loading" would be entirely discriminatory—and
hence illegal I suspect. You can't have it both ways! If you make
it legal then I think you could have a revolt on your hands.
Many women and ethnic minorities actually agree
with my view. They don't want a "leg-up", they want
to be recognised for their own merits. You would do well to remember
that.
Beyond that the ONE important aspect is that
the nominations procedure is available to all, is clear and is
advertised. You don't need major TV advertising. Every LA circulates
(at huge costs) updates about its services. Make them include
the literature !
PUBLIC SERVANTS
AND HONOURS
Totally agree with Wilson. I think he missed
a few points though. The top Civil Servants and forces personnel
still tend to be the products of public schools so actually attendance
at Eton and Harrow and then Oxbridge provides a far better chance
of receiving a knighthood than just being a Civil Servant.
The vast majority of Civil Servants are unlikely
to be honoured so even that system is seriously skewed and public
school/Oxbridge probably gives an even better chance than one
in 3,125. An honour just for doing the job to contract isn't enough.
It ranks with the Fat Cat syndrome in the City.
Either ditch it completely or restrict it to
very very few completely outstanding people each year. The rest
should take their chances with the great unwashed.
The other point he missed is that these people
already receive major salaries and even their pension is likely
to be double or more than, say, the salary of a nurse or teacher.
These people already have enough reward.
I don't see any effect on "imbalance in
public life". Maybe I don't have enough information to understand
your point. Maybe your drafting is poor.
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?
I do NOT believe it is a motivating force for
the vast majority of public servants (and I was one). Most do
their jobs either for money and/or job satisfaction. Success and
sense of achievement are the only motivating forces for many.
Money for the rest.
A few people however WANT an honour and go out
of their way to get it. Usually by sycophancy with politicians
or by trying to appear exceptional (often with disastrous results)
but without being so. This is usually obvious and actually demotivates
those around the sycophant.
The effects? Well I think the effect is a generally
bad one. It often detracts from the real purpose and objectives
of the particular administrative unit and the professional work.
It creates a situation where political ideas are not challenged
when they should be because they are clearly nonsense or unworkable
(I think this may be where Tony got the scratches on his back—because
committed professionals, doing their jobs professionally, pointed
out that his ideas could not be achieved). That in turn leads
to waste and inefficiency when the professional SHOULD have been
giving the sensible advice for which he is paid.
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?
Absolutely not—but you are repeating yourselves
here!
18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social/employment status and the class
of honour received?
It ought to be if the politicians stopped meddling
and allowed the system to function as it should. The honour should
be on MERIT, not social status. Knight a few universally acknowledged
excellent teachers (not just Heads with high political profiles);
or the local rat catcher; or the fireman who saved 10 lives in
one night; or the unemployed woman who has undertaken major voluntary
work and achieved a turnaround in values in a socially deprived
area and see what the effects are!
19. Is there an inevitable conflict of interest
when civil servants are the main judges in assessing whether other
civil servants receive honours?
Absolutely. You scratch my back and I'll scratch
yours. Not fiction—it happens. It is just like the closed
circle remuneration committees in major firms.
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?
No. Largely independent but any such body DOES
require some guidance on the rules. It would be unreasonable to
ban them from receiving honours for other activities—but
the same effect can be achieved if several such committees were
established and membership was not public—so that the membership
of one did not know the membership of the others. If any member
was nominated for an honour then that would be considered by a
different committee and involvement in the honours system would
be hidden in some way.
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?
Inadequate question because you don't say how.
Short answer is no. They are paid for the job they do. If they
have performed adequately to contract then they have earned the
pay they expected—and higher level public servants are already
well paid.
Market forces, responsibilities, and negotiation
do and should determine pay levels. Outstanding achievement within
the terms of contract are usually rewarded by promotion. Lifetime
outstanding achievement is recognised by honours or satisfaction
with a job well done—or simple peer recognition.
Any scheme to provide "merit" pay
is usually doomed to failure because it is probably rather more
subjective than the honours system and inevitably falls prey to
the "blue eyed boy" syndrome. Don't argue—I know,
I've seen it operate in Local Government and even more so in the
private sector. Most politicians haven't. Indeed some have never
even had a "proper" job.
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?
Who designed this bloody survey? I already answered
this one
23. Has respect for the honours system been
diminished by recent disclosures about its operation?
I think Wilson had his head in the sand. The
"refusals" rate has absolutely no bearing on public
unease. The VERY clear recent movements to rewarding pop stars,
party benefactors, and any and every athlete or sportsman (all
highly paid) has not gone unnoticed—even by Labour supporters.
It is seen as cynical vote catching and even if Civil Servants
decided they were clearly looking to go along with Government
attitudes ( with an eye on an honour themselves I wonder?) Thinking
people (the refusniks among them) thus already had little confidence
and the disclosures confirmed it The rest may or may not have
been moved by the disclosures—or it was a 15 minute wonder.
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?
As I said his head was in the sand—a bit
like Hutton! But then reform of the House of Lords, fox hunting
and a myriad of other issues are not "live issues" to
most of the public but this lot still waste masses of time and
even more money on them. Does Wilson actually live in the real
world?
25. Is the general public aware of the honours
system and the part they could play in it through nominations?
No—yet another repeated question. The
standards of the Civil Service have clearly deteriorated. Was
this questionnaire designed by a recent Blair "graduate"?
26. How should awareness of the system be
raised?
And again—I already answered this.
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?
Again I think this is a repeat in effect. With
so many public service awards then this is inevitable. If you
sweep those away then departments should be restricted to a limited
number from their own ranks and on the same merit scheme as all
nominations.
But then the question isn't clear. Do departments
propose non civil Servants. If so how? Is it from knowledge of
outstanding work in their own field of professionalism/responsibility—health,
education etc? Or by sifting proposals from other sources. Beyond
that I cannot answer.
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?
Haven't a clue what you mean.
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?
Full citations might be embarrassing to many—and
even more so if the proposal fails.
So no—just more on the reasons for the
actual award.
More openness about the process might just be
a way of making the whole process more understandable and lead
to a much higher level of public nomination and a return to a
genuine and respected awards system. The criteria and methods
must be well thought through though or there will be an administrative
nightmare and the Civil Service will need to double in size to
handle it!
30. Isn't there a danger that more openness
will lead to personal embarrassments or a series of timid recommendations?
Bugger—I just said that.
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?
Yes.
Mechanisms? Difficult. I think some independent
oversight might be the way forward but it WILL be impossible to
totally eliminate political abuse. Where there's a will there's
a way.
For political elevation to the House of Lords
then I think you already have a Select Committee on that.
Some though are elevated to the House for entirely
Parliamentary reasons by dint of office—the Lord chancellor
for example . I believe this IS political abuse—Tony has
already now rewarded 2 of his closest friends with that position
which carries a lifetime annual pension which is 10 times more
than the average wage. I should be so lucky!!! If Falconer had
his way he would only occupy the full post for 1 year. Good reward
that—nearly £200,000 a year for ever!
The lifetime pension for that post should be
abolished. The encumbent should be allowed to return to the bar
but his cases "supervised" in some way for 5 years.
Other non-elected ministers are also appointed
to the house of Lords (either directly or via the Commons—at
which point they become unelected) All "parliamentary convenient"
appointments should last for the time of office only. For such
an individual to remain in the Lords the name should go forward
again and be determined in accordance with the normal procedures.
32. What role, if any, should Parliament,
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales play
in the honours system?
I really don't know. Ideally all political involvement
should disappear but that is currently impractical. And what about
the "Government" of Northern Ireland.
Since England as such doesn't have a separate
Parliament or Assembly then it would be unreasonable for any of
the other bodies to participate except via the London Parliament.
I think Parliament should be confined to making recommendations
in line with every other recommendation. Currently everything
is very difficult because this Government has totally upset the
status quo of the HoL and yet failed to put forward its eventual
composition. Inept and administratively stupid.
33. The United States Congress awards a Medal
of Honor. Could Parliament do something similar?
No—they shouldn't. What is the purpose?
As I said earlier if Tony likes everything US so much why doesn't
he emigrate? I smell here another Civil Servant trying to curry
favour!
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 EXCEPT the last statement re distributional
patterns. That is putting honour manipulation directly in the
hands of the Government of the day—totally contrary to the
intentions of the honour system. That would be a total abuse of
the system and , if you do that then really the public will lose
ALL faith in the system. Better to totally scrap it and not replace
it with anything. Wilson was clearly manipulated!
February 2004
| 
