Memorandum by Rafal Heydel-Mankoo (HON
54)
SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION
1. An understanding of the evolution of
the Canadian honours system is of vital importance:
(a) the importance of an honours system must
not be under-estimated. The creation of a small honours system
will inevitably lead to an eventual expansion;
(b) in light of UK devolution, regional/local
honours may be a possible solution to the problem of increasing
honours amongst the under-represented portions of the population.
Direct inspiration may be drawn from the honours systems in place
in the Canadian provinces;
(c) honours Committees might be structured
along lines similar to those in place in Canada.
2. On a per capita basis, Britain has fewer
Orders of Knighthood than many European states.
3. The number of annual awards in France
greatly exceeds the 3,000 annual UK awards.
4. Consideration should be given to the
establishment of a new decoration to honour volunteers.
5. Public servants should continue to receive
their traditional honours (as they do across the globe).
6. The abolition of "Sir" and
"Dame" in those orders administered by the government
would have no impact upon those orders in the personal gift of
the Sovereign: this would lead to a two-tiered honours system.
7. Britain's extant multi-class and single
class orders should remain intact. The division of an order into
grades/ranks is standard practice across the globe.
8. Increased public awareness of the honours
system can be achieved with:
(a) An interactive honours web site containing
sample photographs and citations.
(b) A tasteful advertising campaign.
(c) The creation of a widely available pamphlet
containing a nomination form.
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?
Every country needs an honours system. With
the exception of Switzerland and Ireland, every western state
has instituted some system by which worthy individuals can be
recognized. Those countries that have tried to do without honours
or with too few honours have soon realized their folly. A system
of honours allows a nation to acknowledge its most worthy and
accomplished individuals without excessively burdening the taxpayer.
Honours are the most effective means of identifying and celebrating
those individuals that have made an exceptional contribution to
our society.
Honours are also an important tool of encouragement
and can act as an incentive both to the recipient and to others.
The motto of the now extinct Order of St. Stanislas encapsulates
this sentiment: "Praemiando incitat" (By awarding encourage).
In terms of the number of orders and decorations,
it should be noted that, on a per capita basis, Britain has fewer
Orders of Knighthood than any European Monarchy—and, on
a per capita basis, each are given more sparingly in the higher
grades than in most European states. If one ignores the Garter
and Thistle (which have a combined membership of a mere 40) on
the grounds that they are peculiar to the Monarchy, it becomes
apparent that Britain only has four multi-class state Orders (The
Venerable Order of Saint John does not count as it is not a state
Order). This is not very different from the situation in the Netherlands.
One can remove the Golden Fleece from Spain's list on the same
basis as the Garter and still end up with nine (9) Orders for
that country, while Portugal has the largest number of orders
per capita. Canada now has twelve (12) orders (3 national orders
and 9 provincial orders). This far exceeds the number of UK orders.
The Republic of France also has an elaborate
honours system. Although France rationalized sixteen (16!) of
its specialized Merit Orders into one National Order of Merit,
it still found it necessary to retain five other Merit Orders
(Palmes Academiques, Merite Agricole, Merite Maritime, Merite
Culturele, Arts et Lettres). The number of UK orders compares
favourably with this.
The United States may claim not to have an honours
system, but this does not mean the country is without honours:
Presidential Medal of Freedom (Civilian)
Congressional Medal of Honor (Military)
Congressional Gold Medal (Rec'd by the Rt. Hon.
Tony Blair)
Defense of Freedom Medal (for civilian Defence
employees)
Medal of Valor
Military Order of the Purple Heart
Kennedy Center Honors
(The Kennedy Center web page makes the following
fantastic claim: "The Honors are America's equivalent of
a knighthood in Britain, or the French Legion of Honor—the
quintessential reward for a lifetime's endeavor")
In terms of the number of awards made each year,
I can see no reason to lower the number of British awards. Given
the size of the British population, 3,000 annual awards is certainly
not an excessive amount—especially when compared with some
other nations. The prestigious French Legion of Honour may have
up to 125,000 members in total (presently at about 116,000) and,
I believe, almost 3,000 new members are appointed each year.
The Ordre National du Mérite (National
Order of Merit) ranks below the Legion of Honour. It also consists
of five grades and has had 5,000 new members appointed in a single
year. This dwarfs the number of recipients of all British honours
in any one year. Similarly, 3,200 is the annual quota for recipients
of the French Order of Agricultural Merit.
The Legion of Honour, National Order of Merit
and Agricultural Order of Merit account for over 10,000 annual
French awards. Again, this makes the number of British honours
pale in comparison. To these numbers we must add the many appointments
to the French Academic Palms (7,570 knights, 3,785 officers and
280 commanders according to a decree of 24 April 2002), the Arts
& Lettres etc.
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?
Now that the remaining hereditary peers are
to be banished from the House of Lords, I see little reason to
interfere with the peerage. The hereditary peers are all but powerless.
The life peers play an important role in the Upper House. They
possess much needed expertise and insight and provide a service
that few others could equal. Operating at a fraction of the cost
of the legislative chambers of other nations, the House of Lords
is extremely good value for money. The peers stand at the apex
of the Honours System and form, or should form, a body representative
of the interests of the nation. The peerage should be left alone.
Peerage titles serve to remind us of the importance of the Upper
House. Titles not only honour worthy individuals, but also bring
dignity and honour to the institution of Parliament and, in particular,
the House of Lords.
3. In relation to the machinery of the honours
system, what lessons may be learned from the experience of other
countries?
A thorough knowledge of the evolution of the
Canadian Honours System is of vital importance for anyone seeking
to fully comprehend the importance of a system of honours.
Unlike Australia or New Zealand, successive
Canadian Governments have been keen to distance themselves from
British or "Imperial Honours". The 1919 Nickle Resolution
was a resolution of the House of Commons recommending that The
King "refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour
or titular distinction upon any of his subjects domiciled or ordinarily
resident in Canada. . ." This resolution was not an Act of
Parliament, had no legal power and did not bind later Parliaments;
nevertheless, successive Governments, with some notable exceptions,
have seen fit to adhere to the principle then espoused.[1]
In 1951 a Royal Commission on the Arts, Science
and Letters was established. Headed by the Rt Hon Vincent Massey.
Amongst other inquiries, the Commission conducted a special study
of honours in Canada. The Commission's report ultimately led to
the creation of a uniquely Canadian honours system. Amongst the
recommendations made was the establishment of an "Order of
St. Lawrence" to be structured along lines similar to that
of the British Orders of Chivalry.
The Canadian honours system was born in 1967
(Canada' centennial year). Massey's proposed "Order of St.
Lawrence" was ignored and instead the less inspiring "Order
of Canada" was created. Established by The Queen on 21 March
1967, the Order of Canada originally consisted of a single grade:
"Companion"—although there was also a "Medal
of Service". The Order of Canada was established as a single
grade order so as to avoid appearing elitist.
Soon after its creation however, it became obvious
that the single grade nature of the order was far too restrictive.
This is a fact that the Public Administration Committee should
give serious consideration. In the years that followed, the Order
of Canada was expanded to three grades: Companion, Officer and
Member. According to the Constitution of the Order, 15 Companions
may be appointed in any single year until a limit of 165 is reached.
64 Officers may be appointed annually and 136 members. There is
no limit on the total number of Officers and Members that may
exist at any one time.
The Order of Canada is Canada's highest order.
In this sense it should rank with the rarely awarded Garter, yet
thousands of people have received the Order of Canada. The highest
rank of Companion is restricted to 165 yet this too far exceeds
the 24 Garter Knights that may exist at any one time (in reality
the 1954 Statute of the Order allows for 25 knights but the number
has remained at 24 since 1963). Indeed, there can be more Companions
of the Order of Canada than members of the Garter, Thistle, Merit
and Companion of Honour combined! Canada requires an honour that
distinguishes the truly outstanding from the merely very accomplished.
165 is too large a number for the highest level of a nation's
senior order.
The Order of Canada is more realistically the
Canadian equivalent of the Order of the British Empire. For this
and other reasons, some Canadians have called for radical changes
to the Canadian honours system. They have argued that the Order
of Canada needs to be expanded to a standard five grades with
a far more restricted number receiving the highest level. It is
also argued that the Order of Canada should be complemented by
a new single class order equivalent to the Garter or Order of
Merit. This new order would be restricted to 25 members and would
stand at the pinnacle of the Canadian honours system.
Although the Order of Canada's history might
suggest that Canadian governments are uncomfortable with the notion
of honours, the reality is far different. In the past two decades
the number of Canadian honours has arguably grown faster than
in any other comparable western nation.
In 1972, a mere five years after the establishment
of the single class Order of Canada, the Government decided to
significantly expand the honours system. A second national order
was established (Military Merit) and three bravery decorations
were created. Like the Order of Canada, the new Order of Military
Merit was divided into three grades: Commander, Officer and Member.
The Constitution of the Order of Military Merit states that the
number of appointments per year cannot exceed one-tenth of one
percent of the average number of persons who were members of the
Canadian Forces during the previous year. In 1997, 110 appointments
were made.
The three bravery decorations created in 1972
were the Cross of Valour, the Star of Courage and the Medal of
Bravery. The decoration a person receives depends upon the degree
of bravery or risk involved.
In 1984 and 1991 yet more decorations were added
to the honours system. The Order of Canada was unable to cope
with the numbers of Canadians that deserved honours. The lack
of an alternative option naturally caused problems. The government
sought to both honour more Canadians and take pressure off the
Order of Canada simultaneously; the result was the creation of
the Meritorious Service Decorations. Established in a civil and
military division, the Meritorious Service Decorations honour
those whose achievements are noteworthy but not yet sufficient
to merit investiture in the Order of Canada. While the Order of
Canada focuses upon lifetime achievement, the four Meritorious
Service Decorations (military cross, military medal, civilian
cross, civilian medal) honour either a single achievement or an
activity over a specified period.
The expansion of the Canadian honours system
continues unabated. In 1996 the Governor General created the "Caring
Canadian Award". This unimaginatively named award was established
to honour those in the voluntary sector who give tirelessly of
their time and energy for the benefit of others. A third national
order, that of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, was added
to the Canadian honours system in 2000. The structure of the Order
and appointments made to it, replicate that of the Order of Military
Merit.
The Royal Victorian Order is a fourth national
order. This is in the personal gift of HM The Queen and is the
same Order as that found in the UK (although Canadians are only
eligible for the lowest three grades).
As is apparent from the above, the current Canadian
honours system is a far cry from the single class Order of Canada
originally conceived in 1967. This too should give the Public
Administration Select Committee pause for thought.
But Canada's honour system does not end at the
national level.
Unlike the UK, Canada is a federal state. Ten
powerful provincial governments work alongside the national government.
The provincial governments are responsible for areas such as health,
education and social security whilst the federal government is
responsible for defence, immigration and key national interests.
Each province has a provincial legislature and a Lieutenant Governor.
The Lieutenant Governor is the provincial representative of the
Sovereign and performs a similar function to that of the national
Governor General, or indeed the Sovereign in the UK.
With the exception of Newfoundland, each province
has an order of its own (Order of Ontario, Order of British Columbia,
Alberta Order of Excellence, Order of Prince Edward Island, Ordre
Nationale du Quebec, Order of Manitoba, Saskatchewan Order of
Merit, Order of New Brunswick, Order of Nova Scotia) Therefore
alongside the national honours system stand nine provincial honours
systems.
Home to the cities of Toronto and Ottawa, the
province of Ontario is Canada's largest province. A brief analysis
of the Ontario honours system will help provide an idea of the
systems in place in the provinces and the manner in which they
complement the national honours system.
The Order of Ontario is the highest Ontario
award. Awarded to the province's most accomplished individuals,
the Order takes its inspiration from the Order of Canada. The
Order was created in 1986 and consists of only one grade.
In 1987 the Community Action Awards were created
to honour those who help people with disabilities. A Senior Achievement
Award also exists to honour seniors with significant accomplishments
in particular fields of endeavour. In 1993 this award was complemented
by one of 200 Ontario "Senior of the Year" awards.
The Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship was established
in 1973 and was later followed by the Outstanding Achievement
Awards for Voluntarism in Ontario and the Ontario Medal for Young
Volunteers.
As in the national Canadian honours system,
the profusion of Ontario honours continues unabated. 1993 saw
the creation of The Amethyst Award for Outstanding Achievement
by Ontario Public Servants and mention must also be made of the
police and firefighter medals for bravery.
More recently, Ontario has benefited from several
"Lieutenant Governor" awards:
Lieutenant Governor's Award for the Arts (1995)
Lieutenant Governor's Community Volunteer Award
(1998)
Lieutenant Governor's Community Volunteer Award
for Students (2000)
Lieutenant Governor's Community Volunteer Award
for Heritage (1975)
Lieutenant Governor's Medal of Distinction in
Public Administration (1990)
These honours are reserved for residents of
Ontario however similar systems are in place in the other Canadian
provinces. If the provincial and national honours are combined
it is clear that the Canadian honours system is very large indeed.
The fact that successive Canadian governments have had to constantly
expand and increase the number of honours they bestow should provide
the Public Administration Committee with much to think about.
Canadian orders currently in existence:
Order of Canada
Order of Military Merit
Order of Merit of the Police Forces
Royal Victorian Order
Order of Ontario
Order of British Columbia
Alberta Order of Excellence
Order of Prince Edward Island
Ordre Nationale du Quebec
Order of Manitoba
Saskatchewan Order of Merit
Order of New Brunswick
Order of Nova Scotia
The once slim-line Canadian honours system is
now arguably the most elaborate in the New World. There is a great
appetite for honours and the public appreciate and respect the
honours system. One thing is clear, however, many Canadians still
regard the receipt of a British honour as far more prestigious
than receipt of a Canadian honour. For many people, a GBE or GCMG
will always outrank a Companion of the Order of Canada.
Lessons that may be drawn from the Canadian
experience:
1. The importance of an honours system must
not be under-estimated. The creation of a small honours system
will inevitably lead to an eventual expansion. As in the 1960s,
the current vogue / fashion for streamlining and minimizing may
not last.
2. New honours carry far less prestige than
old honours. Britain's traditional orders are far more respected
than any newly created order can ever be. Britain's orders should
not be changed unnecessarily.
3. An honour should bear a dignified and
impressive name. Unimaginative names sound far too bureaucratic
and administrative. When compared with an order such as "The
Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle", an unimaginatively
named honour appears a rather poor relation. If given the choice,
I'm sure most people would opt for the more romantic name.
4. In light of UK devolution, regional /
local honours may be a possible solution to the problem of increasing
honours amongst the under-represented portions of the population.
Direct inspiration may be drawn from the honours systems in place
in the Canadian provinces. Separate Scottish, Welsh and English
honours would be a welcome addition to the honours system. It
is important, however, that whilst these honours may be awarded
on a regional basis, they must nevertheless emanate from the Crown.
The Crown is the fons honorum ("Fount of Honour"). Regional
honours should not take the form of an Order of Chivalry. This
would be inappropriate. However regional medals could certainly
be struck: St. Andrew's Medal or Medal of Scotland would be appropriate.
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 main function of the honours system must
be to recognize distinction in particular fields; however we must
also not neglect the importance of rewarding service. The honours
system does not serve any single purpose. Clearly it is fundamental
that those who excel in the arts, sciences and sports receive
appropriate acknowledgement, nevertheless it is also importance
to motivate and acknowledge those who have dedicated their lives
to certain careers or given generously of their time to volunteer
causes.
5. Can any honours system realistically reflect
all of the above?
The British honours system reflects the above
most effectively.
6. Are the criteria for awards well enough
known and properly understood?
Of the world's honours systems, the British
is the most recognized and revered. British, and to a lesser degree
French, honours carry an international cache that cannot be lightly
dismissed. I do not think that any honours system is properly
understood. Perhaps part of the fascination of honours is the
mystery that surrounds them. To paraphrase Bagheot, daylight should
not be let in upon magic. Much of the allure of honours must surely
be related to the fact that people know comparatively little about
them. Nevertheless, more can certainly be done to keep the public
better informed about the aspect and nature of the honours system.
The criteria for awards is not well enough known and I believe
that more should be done to increase interest in honours.
The Canadian experience is certainly valuable
in this regard. Advertising and use of the Internet can be used
to great benefit. A detailed honours web site should be created.
It should provide a detailed explanation of the honours system,
the various honours available, the selection process etc. There
is no reason to surround the selection process in such mystery.
Attractive honours nomination pamphlets should be created and
made available at government departments.
7. Is the award of honours bound to be subjective—"an
art rather than a science" as the Wilson Review puts it?
The manner of awarding honours can never be
anything other than subjective.
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?
Peer groups and related bodies are ideally placed
to recommend candidates for honours. These institutions would
conceivably be the best judge of a candidate's abilities and should
be encouraged to submit an annual list of individuals. Of course
internal group politics may result in the exclusion from a list
of certain names, but this factor should not detract from the
importance of receiving input from expert bodies. Peer groups
and related bodies should also be consulted about the suitability
of candidates whose names are independently submitted.
9. Would there be any advantage in applying
to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in
appointments to public bodies?
There would be in some cases.
10. What would be the advantages and disadvantages
of restricting honours to those who do voluntary work, either
full-time or part-time?
Honouring voluntary work is a critical aspect
of the honours system. The Order of the British Empire is an extremely
appropriate award for work of this nature. Nevertheless I would
be happy to see this aspect of the honours system expanded. Perhaps
a new decoration should be created: The Angel of Charity Medal
or Medal of the Good Samaritan are two possible choices.
However, honours must never be restricted exclusively to the voluntary
sector. Britain's greatest figures, most accomplished individuals
and most dedicated servants must also have a place within the
honours system. The idea that an honours system would be restricted
to those who do voluntary work is positively bizarre.
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?
This question can be interpreted in different
ways. Clearly it is important that every UK citizen that has achieved
enough to merit distinction be eligible to receive an honour.
This is my interpretation of "equal access". An honours
system that did not fulfill this function would be discriminatory
and repugnant. However "equal access" should not result
in a situation whereby, for example, business executives receive
the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George. Certain
honours are intended for individuals who work in certain fields
or who have achieved major accomplishments in certain fields.
These honours were created to honour excellence or long service
in key areas and to open them up to the general public would defeat
this purpose. Within the relevant field there should of course
be no discrimination against individuals who have met the criteria
for an award.
More can certainly be done to make under-represented
elements of the population aware of the honours system and the
nomination process. Not enough has been done in this area. The
creation of pamphlets, an active advertising programme and the
design of an attractive web page are all methods by which new
segments of the population may be made aware of honours.
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?
Prestige and romance are areas of fundamental
importance to an honours system. We must remember that the senior
honours are in fact orders of "chivalry". Names such
as "The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle"
serve as a reminder of the age of chivalry. We should be very
wary of changing names of historic importance simply to satisfy
perceived, and often transitory, political sensitivities. The
British Empire is a historical reality. Awards to the Order of
the British Empire continue to be made to citizens of certain
commonwealth countries. These individuals do not appear to find
the name particularly offensive or antiquated. I also sincerely
doubt that commonwealth members would regard the "Order of
Britain" as more appropriate, or more prestigious, than an
"Order of the British Empire". As inhabitants of a former
part of the British Empire, it seems only natural that commonwealth
citizens be eligible for the Order of the British Empire. The
same argument cannot be made for an Order of Britain.
To change a historic name simply because it
does not reflect the current reality is to deny our history. The
Order of the British Empire was created in 1917 at a time when
subjects from all quarters of the Empire were fighting and dying
for "King and Empire". The Order was created to honour
these individuals. It was intended to be "inclusive"
and "democratic" and, as such, was open to both women
and men. We would turn our back on this sacrifice were we to change
the name of the Order of the British Empire. Were the name of
this order to be changed it would not be long before others demanded
that the Order of St Michael and St George be changed to avoid
offending non-Christians. Yet this order is ecumenical. The name
"Order of Britain" should certainly be avoided since
Order of Britain post-nominals would match those of the Order
of the Bath.
If we start changing names and denying our past
we begin to construct new and artificial symbols that, without
roots or foundation, can only be pale imitations of that which
they seek to replace. A mature society does not need to tamper
with its past. Belgium has an "Order of Leopold" yet
King Leopold is long dead. Denmark has an "Order of the Elephant"
despite the lack of Danish elephants. These names are of historic
importance and should be respected.
Nevertheless, should the committee decide to
recommend abolition of the Order of the British Empire, I suggest
suitable replacements would be "The Royal Order of the Commonwealth",
"The British Order of the Commonwealth" or "The
Order of Britain and the Commonwealth".
I fail to understand the argument supporting
the abolition of the titles of "Sir" and "Dame"
or "Baron". Although not technically equivalent, the
French Republic has no problem with the use of "Chevalier".
What harm does the title of "Sir" bring? It endows the
bearer with a certain responsibility to act honourably and is
a suitable reward for a lifetime's work. Knighthoods are not bestowed
casually.
The Committee must also realize that the Order
of the Garter, Thistle and the Royal Victorian Order are within
the personal gift of the Sovereign. I cannot realistically envision
Her Majesty abolishing the rank of "Sir" or "Dame".
Therefore, were the Committee to recommend abolition of the title
of "Sir" or "Dame" for the Order of the British
Empire, St. Michael and St. George and the Bath, we would be left
with an embarrassing situation whereby those with the rank of
Knight Commander or Grand Cross in the government administered
Orders would not be eligible to the honorific of "Sir"
whilst those who received this rank in the Orders within the Queen's
personal gift would be so eligible. It would create a two-tiered
honours system and this should be avoided at all costs.
13. Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors
should continue to be given the prefix "Right Honourable"?
The "Right Honourable" honorific honours
not the person but the office. It is an appropriate level of respect.
This form of address may be archaic, and there may have been some
Privy Counsellors for whom the qualification of "Rt Hon"
was perhaps inaccurate, but nevertheless, anyone who has watched
parliamentary debates must be aware that such prefixes help preserve
forms of politeness in an otherwise rowdy body.
Each country has traditions which are self-evidently
anachronistic. Even modern republics use an equivalent "outdated"
honorific. In the United States, Governors, Senators, and Congressmen
are given the title "The Honorable". A recent famous
bearer was "The Honorable George Walker Bush, Governor of
Texas".
In Canada, a country with a distinct aversion
to titles, the use of Honourable and Right Honourable is widespread
and the numbers eligible for this honour are growing. The Canadian
titular honorifics are as follows:
1. "The Governor General of Canada
to be styled "Right Honourable" for life and to be styled
"His Excellency" and his wife "Her Excellency",
or "Her Excellency" and her husband "His Excellency",
as the case may be, while in office.
2. The Lieutenant Governor of a Province
to be styled "Honourable" for life and to be styled
"His Honour" and his wife "Her Honour", or
"Her Honour" and her husband "His Honour",
as the case may be, while in office.
3. The Prime Minister of Canada to be styled
"Right Honourable" for life.
4. The Chief Justice of Canada to be styled
"Right Honourable" for life.
5. Privy councillors of Canada to be styled
"Honourable" for life.
6. Senators of Canada to be styled "Honourable"
for life.
7. The Speaker of the House of Commons to
be styled "Honourable" while in office.
8. The Commissioner of a Territory to be
styled "Honourable" while in office.
9. Puisne judges of the Supreme Court of
Canada and judges of the Federal Court and of the Tax Court of
Canada as well as the judges of the undermentioned Courts in the
Provinces and Territories:
The Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court of Justice
(General Division)
The Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Quebec
The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Nova
Scotia
The Court of Appeal and the Court of Queen's Bench
of New Brunswick
The Court of Appeal and the Court of Queen's Bench
of Manitoba
The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of British
Columbia
The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island
The Court of Appeal and the Court of Queen's Bench
of Saskatchewan
The Court of Appeal and the Court of Queen's Bench
of Alberta
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland
The Supreme Court of Northwest Territories
The Supreme Court of Yukon
The Nunavut Court of Justice
10. Presidents and speakers of Legislative
Assemblies of the Provinces and Territories to be styled "Honourable"
while in office.
11. Members of the Executive Councils of
the Provinces and Territories to be styled "Honourable"
while in office.
12. Judges of Provincial and Territorial
Courts (appointed by the provincial and territorial Governments)
to be styled "Honourable" while in office.
13. The following are eligible to be granted
permission by the Governor General, in the name of Her Majesty
The Queen, to retain the title of "Honourable" after
they have ceased to hold office:
(a) Speakers of the House of Commons
(b) Commissioners of Territories
(c) Judges designated in item 9
14. The title "Right Honourable"
is granted for life to the following eminent Canadians:
— The Right Honourable Martial Asselin
— The Right Honourable Ellen L Fairclough
— The Right Honourable Francis Alvin
George Hamilton
— The Right Honourable Donald F. Mazankowski
— The Right Honourable Robert Lorne
Stanfield
— The Right Honourable Herbert Eser
Gray"
(Source: http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/pe/titre_e.cfm)
We must also ask where this revisionism will
end. The Queen is "Her Majesty", Dukes and Archbishops
are addressed as "Your Grace". Ambassadors and High
Commissioners are referred to as "Your Excellency",
Judges as "Your Honour", Mayors as "Your Worship".
These honorifcs accord the bearer an appropriate level of respect
given the dignity of the office he or she occupies. Should we
do away with all of these honorifics as well? There is surely
no justification for keeping them if we are to do away with the
Privy Counsel honorific. To do away with these honorifics would
be rather bizarre, however, considering that perhaps all other
western states appear to use honorfics when referring to their
Ambassadors, judges and other holders of high office.
Honorifics reflect the maintenance of certain
traditions—in reality they do no harm, in practice they
recall an earlier period, but would any advantage accrue to their
suppression? I think not.
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 would urge the Committee to consider the Canadian
experience with regards to the expansion of the Order of Canada
(see my response to question 3).
The French Republic (founded upon the principle
of "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite") has multi-class honours.
As mentioned supra, the National Order of Merit replaced
the vast number of ministerial orders that had grown under the
Third and Fourth Republics. Those Merit Orders that survived each
consist of three ranks: knight, officer and commander. The Legion
of Honour and the National Order of Merit have two further ranks
of Grand Officer and Grand Cross (these two ranks are styled as
"dignities").
The U.K. already has both single and multi-class
honours. The Most Noble Order of the Garter, the Most Ancient
and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, the Order of Merit and the
Companion of Honour are all single class honours. The remaining
orders are multi-class. It is important that we maintain both
types of order. Orders that are reserved for the most accomplished
and exceptional UK citizens must remain single-class orders.
By its very nature an honours system is elitist.
This cannot be denied and must be accepted. An honours system
must distinguish between the worthy and the exceptionally worthy
as well as between the worthy and the unworthy. Thus one who has
achieved a fair amount in a certain field may receive the rank
of "Member" or "Officer" in an order whilst
one who has achieved a great deal may receive the rank of "Grand
Cross". This seems only fair. It would be strange to reward
people equally for unequal achievements. Similarly, as a member
may progress "through the ranks" of an order, a multi-class
order provides a member with an incentive to continue his or her
work in the hopes of elevation.
The single class orders must be maintained.
Reserved for the truly exceptional, these orders carry immediate
recognition and serve to distinguish our very greatest citizens.
To hear that someone is a member of the Order of St Michael and
St George or the Order of the British Empire merely suggests that
they have accomplished a great deal in a given field. To hear
that someone is a member of the Order of the Garter or the Order
of Merit is to state, categorically, that this individual is one
of Britain's most treasured individuals. It is for this reason
that single class honours must be limited to a single grade of
a restricted number. The Orders of the Garter, Thistle, Merit
and Companions of Honour together total a maximum of 104 members,
and the number of Knights Commander and Knights Grand Cross of
the Bath is also limited by the Statutes of the Order. This is
wholly appropriate.
We must also never forget that honours are not
for Britons alone. The seniority of orders and the grades into
which some are divided also play an important role in international
diplomacy. Heads of State have to get Grand Crosses, but all Grand
Crosses are not equal. Hence European sovereigns are likely to
receive the Garter whilst non-Christian Kings of sizable countries
usually get the GCB, as do the Heads of major States (Presidents
Reagan and Bush Sr. for example); the Heads of lesser States might
get the GCMG. Some countries have made problems by establishing
one Order for all foreign awards: such a practice ranks a short-lived
President of a minor state alongside a great President of France
or a King who has reigned for 40 years.
It is worth noting that the United States Presidential
Medal of Freedom (which was based upon the Order of St. Michael
and St. George) also consists of more than one grade.
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 do not think the solution is to simply increase
the proportion of women and minority ethnic people that sit on
Honours Committees. I believe that key office holders should sit
on Honours Committees (irrespective of race or gender). One hopes
that the holders of these offices will already be sufficiently
representative of the wider population and suitably progressive
and unbiased so as to honour those that truly deserve honours,
irrespective of background or origin. In this manner, I am certain
that women and minority ethnic persons will begin to receive a
much larger share of the honours currently awarded.
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?
The honours system is undoubtedly a motivating
force. It cannot be otherwise. Honours are something to which
public servants can aspire. Honours for public servants exist
across the globe. I do not see why they should be seen as anything
other than positive.
It must also be remembered that public sector
salaries are far lower than those in the private sector. An honour
is one way for the state to try to "make-up" for the
wage gap. The addition of a post-nominal or the receipt of a knighthood
is of great importance to many people and can make them feel that
the countless years they spent in a department or on a project
was ultimately worth-while, despite the fact that more might have
been earned elsewhere. An honour is the government's equivalent
of a "bonus". Whereas in business or industry an employee
might expect to receive a bonus for accomplishing a certain task,
public servants should be able to hope they might receive an honour.
An honour is one of the perks of the job. It is one of the factors
that can help ensure that the public sector does not lose all
of its brightest individuals to the private sector.
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 is entirely fair. Diplomats, civil servants
and members of the armed forces are all servants of the Crown.
It is only natural that they be eligible for honours from the
Crown. In the crudest of terms: The Sovereign is their boss. The
practice of honouring members of these three fields is not peculiar
to Britain. It is an accepted reality across the globe. France
awards thousands of honours to its public servants. Individual
French departments often have their own orders: Agriculture etc.
In France a great number of the awards of the Legion of Honour
go to the military whereas in the UK awards are given more sparingly
to the military and are a minority of the whole.
Canadian public servants living in Ontario are
eligible for The Amethyst Award for Outstanding Achievement
by Ontario Public Servants and the Lieutenant Governor's
Medal for Distinction in Public Administration. Public servants
are also eligible for the Order of Canada and only members of
the armed forces may receive the Order of Military Merit (equivalent
of the Bath).
Each of the United States armed services maintains
a "pyramid of honour" of its own awards and decorations
including Department of Defence awards and decorations; also,
unlike Britain, many of the federal departments and independent
agencies award their own awards and decorations.
18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social/employment status and the class
of honour received?
There should be no link between social status
and the class of honour received. A person of any social status
must be eligible for any class of honour if he or she has met
the necessary criteria. Nevertheless, employment status must surely
still dictate the type of honour one receives. One receives an
honour because of one's accomplishments. Thus it is possible for
a working class man to raise himself up to the highest ranks of
the business world and receive a knighthood. This is correct and
proper. However should a parking attendant, whatever his social
status, be eligible for a knighthood? If he has achieved nothing
remarkable in his life I fail to see why he should be so honoured.
The highest grades of orders must be restricted
to those who have achieved a suitable station in life. That being
said, whether their origins are humble or not should be irrelevant.
19. Is there an inevitable conflict of interest
when civil servants are the main judges in assessing whether other
civil servants receive honours?
One assumes senior civil servants are able to
judge recommendations with impartiality.
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?
I would strongly advise against banning committee
members from receiving an honour. They should certainly not receive
an honour whilst a member of the committee and, after they leave
the committee, perhaps a five year period should elapse before
they become eligible for honours. However I think it would be
unwise to forever ban members from honours.
An Honours Committee might structure itself
along the lines of the committees in place in Canada.
The Order of Canada appointments are determined
by an Advisory council: "The Governor General, as Chancellor
of the Order, makes the appointments based on the recommendations
of an Advisory Council. The Advisory Council, which is chaired
by the Chief Justice of Canada, includes the Clerk of the Privy
Council, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage,
the Chairperson of the Canada Council for the Arts, the President
of the Royal Society of Canada, and the Chairperson of the Association
of Universities and Colleges of Canada. As well, two members of
the Order are part of the Council for a maximum three-year term"
(Source: www.gg.ca)
Appointments to the Canadian Order of Merit
of the Police Force are administered thusly: "Regional Advisory
Committees screen nominations and submit their choice to a national
Advisory Committee. This committee, chaired by the President of
the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, reviews the recommendations
from all regions of Canada and submits a list to the Principal
Commander for consideration. The Principal Commander submits the
list of nominees to the Governor General for approval." (Source:
www.gg.ca )
The Order of Ontario is administered thus: "All
nominations are considered by an Advisory Council made up of the
Chief Justice of Ontario, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
of Ontario and the Secretary of the Cabinet and other distinguished
members of the Order of Ontario. The Chief Justice serves as Chair
of the Council. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario is the Chancellor
of The Order of Ontario." (Source: http://www.gov.on.ca/MCZCR/english/citdiv/honours/order.htm)
I believe that committees could be established
for each of the British orders not in the personal gift of The
Queen with perhaps a final body overseeing all appointments. The
membership of this final body could follow the structure of the
Order of Canada Advisory Council. Members could include Garter
King of Arms, Lord Lyon King of Arms, a representative from the
Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood, the Registrar of
the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor, the Lord Chamberlain,
the Lord Chancellor (or his replacement), the Chief of the Defence
Staff, a rotating Ambassador or senior Foreign Office official,
the President of the Royal Society, the heads of the LGA, TUC,
national universities governing body, sports representatives etc.
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?
Whilst I have no doubt that higher pay would
be preferable to the award of honours, any eventual pay rise should
not be accepted in lieu of an honour. An honour is recognition
from the State (through the Crown as fons honorum). Honours are
a means of showing approval and they demonstrate this in a manner
that money cannot. The receipt of an honour rewards an individual
in a unique way. The feeling that an honour bestows cannot be
replicated with a cash award.
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?
This would not be sensible at all. As mentioned,
numerous other states have honours for state servants. As servants
of the Crown it is only right that they receive honours from the
Crown. The Queen is the fons honorum after all. Action such as
that suggested by the Wilson Review would needlessly lower morale.
There is absolutely no need for any action of this kind. It would
not accrue any advantage and would cause much bad feeling.
State servants should not have to compete on
similar terms with everybody else. The work that they are doing
is different and special.
GAINING THE
PUBLIC'S
CONFIDENCE: TRANSPARENCY
AND INVOLVEMENT
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?
Yes. This is not a `hot topic' issue. There
is no need for quick and sudden change. If changes are to be made
they must be carefully considered. Nevertheless, the honours system
in place is extremely good and is respected internationally. We
should be very cautious about tampering unnecessarily.
25. Is the general public aware of the honours
system and the part they could play in it through nominations?
No. I do not think that any honours system is
properly understood. Perhaps part of the fascination of honours
is the mystery that surrounds them. To paraphrase Bagheot, daylight
should not be let in upon magic. Much of the allure of honours
must surely be related to the fact that people know comparatively
little about them. Nevertheless, more can certainly be done to
keep the public better informed about the aspect and nature of
the honours system. The criteria for awards is not well enough
known and I believe that more should be done to increase interest
in honours.
26. How should awareness of the system be
raised?
More can certainly be done to increase awareness.
There is no reason for the selection process to be veiled in such
mystery. The Canadian experience is certainly valuable in this
regard. Advertising and use of the Internet can be used to great
benefit. A detailed and interactive honours web site should be
created. It should provide a detailed explanation of the honours
system, the various honours available, the selection process etc.
Photographs of multicultural recipients should be included so
as to demonstrate the inclusive nature of honours. Sample citations
should be included so that people are aware of the merit-based
aspect of honours. The web site should be easy to find and government
departments should link to it.
Attractive honours nomination pamphlets should
be created and made available at government departments. A discreet
and tasteful print advertising programme could also be embarked
upon. The public should be encouraged to nominate people for certain
awards.
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?
There is nothing wrong with this situation.
Citizens must be able to nominate individuals. This is an important
aspect of any honours system. However not all honours should be
open by nomination. It is quite right that departments generate
their own list of names.
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?
I would be happy to see a higher proportion
of public nominations if new honours were created with this intention.
If a new order or decoration (such as a new decoration honouring
voluntary work) were created it would be entirely appropriate
for the appointments to be drawn exclusively from public nominations.
However we must guard against opening up existing honours to an
all-nomination system. This would lead to a loss of the expertise
that is currently at play in the awarding of honours.
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?
Citations should definitely be published. I
can see no reason why they should not. Publication of a citation
is another means by which an individual can be honoured. It permits
a wider audience to learn of the individual's achievements. The
publication of citations will also enable the population to better
understand the criteria required for receipt of an award and,
hopefully, can serve to inspire others. Such citations might also
enable individuals to become community role models.
30. Isn't there a danger that more openness
will lead to personal embarrassments or a series of timid recommendations?
I do not think so.
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?
32. What role, if any, should Parliament,
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales play
in the honours system?
In light of UK devolution, regional / local
honours may be a possible solution to the problem of increasing
honours amongst the under-represented portions of the population.
Direct inspiration may be drawn from the honours systems in place
in the Canadian provinces. Separate Scottish, Welsh and English
honours would be a welcome addition to the honours system. It
is important, however, that whilst these honours may be awarded
on a regional basis, they must nevertheless emanate from the Crown.
The Crown is the fons honorum ("Fount of Honour").
Regional honours should not take the form of
an Order of Chivalry. This would be inappropriate. However regional
medals could certainly be struck: St Andrew's Medal or
Medal of Scotland would be appropriate. An exception to
this prohibition on the establishment of orders would be the creation
of royal orders for Wales and Northern Ireland that replicate
the English and Scottish Orders of the Garter and Thistle. A Welsh
Order of the Leek or Order of St David would be an excellent idea.
Regional honours may be awarded at the local
level by members of the Royal Family or by a Lord Lieutenant.
Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly
for Wales could all become involved in this process.
33. The United States Congress awards a Medal
of Honor. Could Parliament do something similar?
Parliament must not create something similar.
Honours must stem from the Crown. This is a vitally important
concept. The Sovereign is the fount of all honour (fons honorum).
Although the Queen is one of the constituent parts of Parliament,
Parliament in and of itself should not enter into the process
of bestowing honours.
If Parliament wishes to honour an individual
it could petition the Crown to create a special honour which The
Queen would bestow. Alternatively some form of honour that replicates
a civic honour could be created. Civic leaders may honour an individual
with "the Freedom of the City" or "the Keys to
the City"; something similar could be established for Parliament.
A ceremony could be created in which recipients are called to
the Bar of the House to receive the honour/certificate from the
Speaker or Serjeant-at-Arms. However this should never be more
than a token honour and should not be regarded as equal to a Crown
honour. It should not carry post-nominals.
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?
February 2004
1 In the 1950s, for example, the Rt. Hon. Vincent
Massey, Governor General of Canada, was informed that the Canadian
Government would not oppose the Queen's desire to invest him with
the Order of the Garter. However the Canadian Prime Minister later
changed his mind and advised the Sovereign not to bestow the Garter
upon Massey. Massey would consequently have to content himself
with the Victorian Chain (as the Chain is a rarely bestowed personal
gift from the Sovereign it was arguably a higher honour than the
Garter but one that bestowed no title). Back
| 
