Memorandum by Dr B Huston (HON 60)
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?
I would favour complete abolition, rather than
have it continue in its current form. However, a modernised and
better-directed system could still serve a good purpose.
I would say that 3,000 is certainly excessive,
given the point made about the number of alternative awards available.
If the system is to continue then the numbers should be reduced
to say 200 so that awards actually mean something.
In addition, honours should reflect genuine
esteem rather than any abhorrent notions of social rank.
2. What should be done about the peerage in
light of, among other developments, the present proposals to remove
all hereditary peers from the House of Lords?
The whole notion of still having a "peerage"
in the 21st century is unacceptable to me, and the fact that certain
individuals still defer to those with inherited titles frankly
baffles me.
As far as the selection process is concerned,
I strongly agree with the suggestion made by many regarding the
proportional use of votes from a general election. Continue to
use "first past the post" for MPs, then divide up the
second chamber seats according to some form of PR scheme amongst
the parties. You then have a second chamber with at least a partial
mandate, with a legitimate right to revise but not indefinitely
block. A further consequence may be increased voter turnout, as
votes cast for alternative candidates in safe seats will not be
wasted.
3. In relation to the machinery of the honours
system, what lessons may be learned from the experience of other
countries?
Cannot comment on this.
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 first category is effectively redundant,
as there are already many awards available for particular fields
(Nobel Prize, BAFTA, Booker Prize, Teacher of the Year, honorary
degrees, etc).
The drawback in applying the second category
in its own right is that it can degenerate into honours for simply
"doing a job".
I feel that any award should reflect truly exceptional
deeds that would not otherwise be honoured. My ideal example would
be someone with limited personal resources who has still somehow
managed to set up and run a medical care unit within a deprived
region of the world for many years. Individuals who have little
themselves, but give a great deal.
So I suppose that my answer boils down to an
outstanding combination of categories two and three.
5. Can any honours system realistically reflect
all of the above?
It should not try to reflect all of the above.
This has led to a system that appears to be oversubscribed, poorly
targeted, and often arbitrary. If the criteria become too broad
and too vague, then you reach the situation where you can justify
adding names simply "to add interest".
6. Are the criteria for awards well enough
known and properly understood?
No, and they seem to be "for services to"
just about anything going no matter how trivial. Is it true that
self-promotion and celebrity status really represent the nation's
core values? I hope not. I am also dubious about the duplication
of awards—surely receiving an item such as an Olympic gold
medal is honour enough in itself.
7. Is the award of honours bound to be subjective—"an
art rather than a science" as the Wilson Review puts it?
Yes, it is not like taking a Mathematics exam
where there are basically only right or wrong answers. The current
system of peer review is the only feasible approach, but of course
human beings have their biases. The trick is to balance them out.
So the real issue is who gets to decide, and who appoints them?
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?
Yes, but with reduced numbers and taking into
account which awards already exist within their particular fields.
9. Would there be any advantage in applying
to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in
appointments to public bodies?
Cannot comment on this.
10. What would be the advantages and disadvantages
of restricting honours to those who do voluntary work, either
full-time or part-time?
The advantage is that, to my mind, only the
most deserving individuals would then be receiving awards.
The disadvantage is that certain mercenary individuals
may perform such (short-term) work for the sole purpose of securing
an honour. The good work still gets done, but I personally would
resent awarding such a person.
Although it is often hard to gauge an individual'
s motives, any selection panel just needs to be realistic. It
has to be said that it is a lot easier to perform charity work
when you already have all the money you will ever need and lots
of spare time on your hands. I am not saying that such people
should be excluded, but that the bar should be raised higher for
them.
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?
By making the format acceptable to as many people
as possible. This means modernisation. You cannot have equal access
to a system when many want nothing to do with it.
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?
Absolutely outdated. This country desperately
needs to stop looking backwards, and the word "Empire"
does have unfortunate connotations. The "British Order of
Merit" would be better.
The concept of still using medieval titles to
denote social rank in the 21st century is simply wrong
(which is probably why not one single other country
in the world does it, even the most "primitive" culture).
In fact I would go so far as to call the practice repulsive. It
cannot be right to force one human being to call another "Sir"
or "Lady" (whatever the merits of the individual concerned).
This level of excruciating acquiescence reminds me of the days
of slavery.
Those who defend the concept seem to have the
misguided notion that because something is traditional then that
makes it right.
13. Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors
should continue to be given the prefix "Right Honourable"?
I do not have a huge problem with this—it
sounds somewhat archaic and not quite like a professional title,
but not so invidious as a feudal title (I assume that it isn't
one?).
The litmus test for me is, would I feel like
a 12th century peasant addressing someone in this way?
Still, such titles do not make you any more
competent to do a job. My attitude is that respect must be constantly
earned, rather than ordained.
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?
If the system is far more limited and restricted
to only those of truly exceptional merit, then only one or two
levels are needed. I would stick with the existing "Companion
of Honour" (limited to 65 living holders), scrap the rest,
and introduce a "British Order of Merit".
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?
Yes. I do not know the current composition of
the Committee, but I would guess that it hasn't changed much in
100 years.
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?
I cannot speak from personal experience, but
I can see how it could be used to encourage the acceptance of
poor salaries and an attitude of "don't rock the boat".
If this does indeed happen, then it is not a good situation. I
think the main problem is highlighted in the question—because
of the increased odds of civil service related awards, particularly
at the higher levels, there is a level of expectation created
that after 40 years in the same job an honour will be forthcoming.
I find this rather sad—I find that the nicest things in
life tend to happen as surprises.
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.
18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social/employment status and the class
of honour received?
Yes, simply by eliminating/reducing the number
of classes available! (see Question 14).
19. Is there an inevitable conflict of interest
when civil servants are the main judges in assessing whether other
civil servants receive honours?
Yes, but then someone has to decide these things,
so those employed in the civil service are likely to be the most
informed as far as their own nominations are concerned. However,
any committee that has the final say should not consist of only
civil servants.
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 think that both of these suggestions are very
good ideas. Any system is only as good as the people who implement
it. There should be full independence, and no vested interests.
21. Should people who serve the state and
the public well in paid employment be recognised by higher pay
rather than the award of honours?
Yes, but why should public sector workers be
limited when certain other sections of society currently get both.
To put it crudely, you can't use an MBE to pay the gas bill.
22. Would it be sensible, as the Wilson Review
proposes, to cut down the number of orders of honours so that
state servants have to compete on similar terms with everybody
else?
Yes.
GAINING THE
PUBLIC'S
CONFIDENCE: TRANSPARENCY
AND INVOLVEMENT
23. Has respect for the honours system been
diminished by recent disclosures about its operation?
I get the impression that any disclosures relate
to things which people have strongly suspected anyway, so the
respect level (whether high or low) has not changed.
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?
I think that if people are put on the spot regarding
this topic (and many other apparent "non-issues") then
you will get strong opinions. However, there is a feeling of electoral
impotence in this country summed up by that old saying of "if
voting changed anything then it would be banned".
Even for those with a more optimistic outlook,
it is often not clear where to register your views on any given
subject (I only found this document by accident!).
25. Is the general public aware of the honours
system and the part they could play in it through nominations?
Cannot comment on this.
26. How should awareness of the system be
raised?
It should not be raised until fundamental reform
occurs. Such reform will then raise the opportunity to re-sell
the system.
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 would say that this is a reasonable balance.
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?
If all nominations were to be made by the public,
then who exactly would be excluded from nominating (the civil
service?). I feel that nomination is not really the big issue,
the selection process is.
29. In the light of the full implementation
in 2005 of the Freedom of Information Act, should there be more
openness about the process by which recommendations for honours
are produced? Should full citations be published?
Yes to both.
30. Isn't there a danger that more openness
will lead to personal embarrassments or a series of timid recommendations?
I would maintain that if you vastly scale things
down and make only 200 or so awards each year, to truly deserving
and exceptional individuals, then there will be no need for embarrassment
and timidity.
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?
I am not in a position to comment directly on
this—but any rational person can see that, human vanity
being what it is, there must be huge potential for bribing people
with the prospect of awards. In theory, a government could cover
up the most appalling corruption and/or incompetence on this basis.
This is why a fully independent committee, whose members have
no vested interests of their own (as far as is possible), is the
only decent approach.
32. What role, if any, should Parliament,
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales play
in the honours system?
There could be the option to receive awards
at the appropriate parliament building, perhaps from the Speaker.
It should be recognised that many people (a minority, but a significant
one nonetheless) in this country have republican principles, and
would balk at the prospect of receiving an honour from the monarch
(not because they object to the queen as a person, but because
of the hereditary nature of the position). Give grown-up people
with their own minds a choice.
33. The United States Congress awards a Medal
of Honor. Could Parliament do something similar?
Yes, perhaps by using the existing Companion
of Honour award (which is strictly limited in number, and so would
not involve an undue amount of parliamentary time). The CH could
be presented during a session of parliament.
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, but I would hope that vastly reducing the
number of awards bestowed would have an overall effect of reducing
the effort involved. There will always be better things to spend
the money on.
March 2004
| 
