Memorandum by R M McKeag (HON 52)
THE POSSIBILITY
OF RADICAL
CHANGE AND
OTHER GENERAL
ISSUES
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?
Were the honours system a building, the National
Trust would be taking steps to preserve it for posterity. Were
the honours system a painting, the National Art Collections Fund
would be mustering resources to save it for the nation. Why, of
all our country's rich heritage, should we value and conserve
only the tangible things?
The continued existence in such a complete form
of our honours system, including our peerage, is a testimony to
an aspect of our history that is worth celebrating: we have not
been defeated in war and overrun by those intent on replacing
our culture nor, for many centuries, have we suffered civil war
and the violent overthrow of our institutions.
That we have avoided the revolutions that devastated
so many other countries is due in great measure to our social
class structure. Although we are often portrayed as especially
class ridden, this appearance is due more to the legacy of our
uninterrupted history and to the outward manifestations of our
classes (even the bowler hat and furled umbrella) than to the
greater prevalence of class differences here than elsewhere. All
societies exhibit class differences, even the communist countries
that pretend to be most egalitarian; classes are inevitable. The
things that are important about class structure are (a) that there
is a substantial middle class forming a bridge between the extremes
of society and (b) that there is considerable fluidity between
the classes.
In this country, for various reasons, including
the industrial revolution and absence of other revolutions, we
have developed a substantial middle class, which has had a democratising
and stabilising effect on our society. We have also had greater
fluidity between classes than most other European countries. The
snobbish notion of seize quartiers was never entertained here;
the meritorious and successful have always been able to progress
upwards through society and have their merit and success recognised
through the honours system; cadet branches of our titled families
have had to swim by their own efforts or sink socially, thereby
blurring the distinction between the classes. The late Sir Anthony
Wagner, Garter King of Arms, researched the gradations and fluidity
of British society and, in his book English Genealogy, he gives
the example of the 16th century Earl & Countess of Lenox (Charles
Stuart & Elizabeth Cavendish): one of their nephews was a
Salisbury innkeeper, Ferdinando Bainton, and another was King
James VI & I.
Let us therefore cherish this rich heritage.
There is no national clamour to abolish the system or even to
tinker with it. Indeed, on the scale on which it operates at present,
it gives a lot of pleasure, not only to the recipients, but also
to their friends and colleagues, who are pleased to see merit
publicly recognised. Should tinkering be thought necessary, it
should be justified by truly excellent arguments, for what is
rashly done may not readily be undone again.
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?
Keep it. It is part of this rich heritage. There
is no widespread demand for a unicameral parliament; the House
of Lords will continue to need to be populated by people of wisdom
and experience—let us continue to call them by the traditional
titles. How these peers are selected, by election or appointment,
is not within the remit of this inquiry but the following suggestion
is pertinent to this inquiry's deliberations.
Whereas the House of Commons is increasingly
populated by career politicians with little experience of aviation
or business or civil service or defence or education or farming
or . . . or zoology, the House of Lords boasts experts in a wealth
of fields and uses this expertise in the scrutiny of legislation.
I propose that we limit the pool of candidates for peerages to
those who, in the table of precedence, have reached the level
of Commander or Companion. Those with a CBE or knighthood have
won their spurs in a variety of fields and are well equipped to
contribute to the work of the House. This formula will also enable
those with hereditary peerages, and often many years of experience
in the House, to be selectable. It will enable judges and secretaries
of state to be promoted to the Lords. Thus the honours system
has a useful filtering rôle to play. Incidentally, it will
also permit the Royal Dukes to be offered seats in the House again;
at present they, because of their close connection to the Crown,
are by convention debarred from party politics and thus from either
House.
3. In relation to the machinery of the honours
system, what lessons may be learned from the experience of other
countries?
One country that I believe the Wilson Review
ignored was the Republic of Ireland. It is one of the few countries
in the world that lacks an honours system. At present this is
proving something of an embarrassment to the Irish government.
How should visiting heads of state and other dignitaries be honoured?
How should outstanding citizens have their contributions recognised?
At present the Provost of Trinity College is asked to award an
honorary doctorate or the Lord Mayor of Dublin is asked to present
the freedom of the city. I understand that both are beginning
to baulk at bailing out the state. Consequently there is beginning
to be talk of instituting an Irish Order of St Patrick or some
equivalent. It is worth noting that the Irish government holds
its most important receptions in a hall bedecked with the heraldic
banners of the knights of the now apparently defunct U.K. Order
of St Patrick—people enjoy colour and ceremony and the trappings
of honour.
WHAT ARE
HONOURS FOR?
THE MERIT
ISSUE
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 present system works reasonably well. Mr
Major's attempt to attract a wider range of nominations has been
successful and could be more widely publicised so as to bring
to the attention of the Honours Committee candidates that might
otherwise be overlooked.
5. Can any honours system realistically reflect
all of the above?
Yes but it can never be perfect; we must accept
that there will always be an element of the lottery about it.
6. Are the criteria for awards well enough
known and properly understood?
No but a better web site could make a considerable
difference.
7. Is the award of honours bound to be subjective—"an
art rather than a science" as the Wilson Review puts it?
Not so much subjective as incompletely objective.
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?
All such organisations should be encouraged
to forward nominations and some can be invited, from time to time,
to comment on criteria. Once a particular organisation becomes
formally part of the process, two problems arise: one is that
it becomes difficult to drop that organisation in subsequent years
and the other is that a never ending queue of other organisations
forms to argue their cases for formal recognition.
9. Would there be any advantage in applying
to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in
appointments to public bodies?
I do not know what these criteria are.
10. What would be the advantages and disadvantages
of restricting honours to those who do voluntary work, either
full-time or part-time?
The considerable disadvantage that vast numbers
of worthy people would become ineligible—dedicated consular
officials around the world, leading sportsmen and musicians, world
class scientists, . . .
HONOURS AND
SOCIAL DIVISIONS
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?
Better publicity, which, these days, means a
better web site for ease of understanding and nominating.
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, we must remember,
does not belong solely to the United Kingdom: we share it with
a number of other Commonwealth countries (whose agreement we must
seek if we wish to change it). But not all, so it would be presumptuous
to change the name to the Order of the British Commonwealth. The
Order of Britain is an utterly inappropriate name as those of
us in the U.K. but not in G.B. already feel marginalised in a
number of ways. The reference to the British Empire is no more
ludicrous than references to the Garter or the Bath or the names
of many foreign orders. The practice of rebranding companies is
now greeted with considerable cynicism by the public—it
is best avoided unless we wish to court such cynicism.
Should titles be abolished? No. Aristocratic
titles still exist in many countries. In this country the continued
existence of the House of Lords is a reason for continuing aristocratic
titles, if any reason is needed. It is said that titles such as
"Sir" are now used only in this country; that is not
strictly relevant, nor is it strictly true: Malaysia, for example,
uses "Dato" and "Datin". It appears that we
wish to destroy our heritage for reasons that amount to little
more than vandalism.
13. Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors
should continue to be given the prefix "Right Honourable"?
Why not? I trust it is a valid description.
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?
The evidence of the Wilson Review strongly suggests
that, in practice, several gradations are preferable to a single
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?
The first question is dealt with under questions
4, 6 & 8 above: develop Mr Major's changes further. It is
somewhat insulting to link the second question to the first. This
second question is best answered by saying that we want people
with wisdom and the appropriate qualifications who will discharge
their duties without fear or favour rather than token representatives.
Incidentally, what evidence is there that the
fraction of women (or minority ethnic people) currently being
honoured, compared with those women (or minority ethnic people)
worthy of honour, is significantly less than the fraction of men?
I have seen no figures and I wonder whether those who asked this
question about the diversity of honours are doing so on slender
or non-existent evidence.
PUBLIC SERVANTS
AND HONOURS
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?
Motivating to those who are eligible; irrelevant
to those who are not.
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?
It could be argued that these people are working
more directly for their country than the rest of us who are in
other occupations. Even if it seems unfair, I have never heard
anyone complain about it. Therefore, why change it?
18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social/employment status and the class
of honour received?
I belong to a profession in which I could be
eligible for anything from an MBE to a peerage. If a petrol pump
attendant aspires to anything more than an M.B.E. he had better
change his job to one where he can contribute more and thus merit
more.
19. Is there an inevitable conflict of interest
when civil servants are the main judges in assessing whether other
civil servants receive honours?
Any potential or apparent conflict of interest
can be allayed by the presence of some independent members.
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?
Independent outsiders—yes. Banning them
from honours—only while serve on those committees.
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?
Can you convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer
and other employers? That would open up a bigger can of worms—how
much extra pay?
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?
See the answer to question 17.
GAINING THE
PUBLIC'S
CONFIDENCE: TRANSPARENCY
AND INVOLVEMENT
23. Has respect for the honours system been
diminished by recent disclosures about its operation?
No.
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?
Not sufficiently.
26. How should awareness of the system be
raised?
Better publicity about, and use of, the web
site.
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 expect it brings to the attention of the committee
people that might otherwise be overlooked; this should be encouraged.
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?
The present mixture seems to work well.
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?
There is a need to avoid embarrassing individuals.
It is also wise not to do something that is likely to lead to
damaging squabbles.
30. Isn't there a danger that more openness
will lead to personal embarrassments or a series of timid recommendations?
Openness about the process would be good; openness
about individual cases would be bad.
OVERSIGHT AND
GOVERNANCE
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?
Do Prime Ministers' attempts to pack a majority
into the House of Lords constitute abuse? On the one hand I should
like to see the award of peerages and other honours be based on
merit and approved by a committee that is independent of all political
parties and of the Prime Minister, whose role, like that of any
other individual or body, should be limited to proposing names.
On the other hand, I can see that the patronage that the Prime
Minister wields is very useful: that in itself is a good argument
for keeping the peerage and its titles. Perhaps the two views
are not wholly incompatible.
32. What role, if any, should Parliament,
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales play
in the honours system?
None, apart from proposing names to the Honours
Committee. Why does Northern Ireland not get a mention?
33. The United States Congress awards a Medal
of Honor. Could Parliament do something similar?
The argument is that we already have enough
awards; why add another?
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?
Maybe, but we should forebear to introduce extra
bureaucracy where there is little benefit to be gained.
FINALLY
In my answer to question 1, I argued that there
was a lot to be proud of in our honours system, reflecting, as
it does, our rich history, and that this heritage ought to be
cherished and preserved.
Lord Hurd, in his Memoirs, recalls his posting
in Peking fifty years ago and his subsequent visits to that city.
Of the destruction of much of Peking and its walls and arches
and lanes and beauty and climate, he writes that "no recent
act of vandalism in the world over the last 50 years has been
so complete" and "Mao encouraged the Red Guards to turn
against the past and actively destroy what survived from it. That
destruction was too much for most Chinese". Are we about
to destroy our past and incur the condemnation of future generations?
The Wilson Review saw little reason to believe
that there was public unease about the honours system. The danger
is that the Public Administration Select Committee will feel that
its inquiry has failed if it does not recommend all sorts of changes.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
February 2004
| 
