Memorandum by Chris Gash (HON 62)
In response to the Public Administration Select
Committee's request for views on the existing honours system,
and in particular if there should be an honours system at all,
I write from the perspective of an interested observer of the
system over a period of more than 40 years. My oldest existing
notes about honours date from 1961, though I have good reason
to believe that my interest began about five years previously.
In the comments which accompany this letter,
I start from the assumption that the honours system has been and
will continue to be useful to the government and the country in
recognizing "worth" in any individual's work and leisure
activity so long as other titles (Professor, Dr, for instance
in the academic world; even the much mis-used Reverend, as applied
to the Clergy) are in use. As I understand it, only two awards,
the Victoria Cross, and the George Cross, are accompanied by annual
honoraria; the remaining state honours are therefore conferred
at minimum cost.
Having already noticed changes in the honours
system (over the last four or five decades), I have presumed to
entitle the third part of my comments "Streamlining the Honours
System"; but because the present review seems in part at
least to be due to perceived imperfections connected with the
naming of the Order of the British Empire, replacing that order
seems to be a first priority.
1. THE ORDER
OF THE
BRITISH EMPIRE
1.1 Regardless of the controversy over the
word "Empire" in the title of this Order, it should
be remembered that the Order was established in 1917 as the newest
of the British "Orders of Chivalry". Knights Commander
of this Order rank immediately above Knights Bachelor (who are
the sole surviving representatives of the ancient state of orders
of knighthood). However, because the there is no female equivalent
to Knight bachelor, women entering positions where their male
counterparts are made Knights Bachelor (eg all High Court Judges,
some University Professors and Vice Chancellors, some Heads of
Schools, etc.) are presently made Dames Commander of the Order
of the British Empire. This has muddled the order of the British
Empire with a "state" order, and probably indicates
the need for a new, specifically "state" order or honour.
1.2 The Order of the British Empire is heavily
used at the lower levels of OBE and MBE, making it the most widely
conferred order. The New Year Honours List for 2004 probably contained
the names of about 1500 persons of whom 26 were made Knights Bachelor;
25 were appointed to the Order of the Bath (at 3 levels); 23 to
the Order of St. Michael & St. George (at 3 levels); and 29
to the Royal Victorian Order (at 4 levels); leaving about 1400
nominations to the Order of the British Empire (at 5 levels).
I estimate this was represented by 1 GBE; 12 K/DBE's; 130 CBE's;
about 350 OBE's and about 850 MBE's.
1.3 Excluding 2 members of the Royal Family
who have been GBE for 67 and 50 years respectively, there are
at present 47 Knights Grand Cross of the British Empire, but No
Dames Grand Cross (since the death of Lady Donaldson on 4th October
2003) although there is a provision for up to 100 GBE's. Also,
since the death of Air Chief Marshal Sir David Lee (13th February
2004), there are now only two GBE's who have been promoted successively
from CBE and then KBE—Admiral Sir Peter White and Air Chief
Marshal Sir William Wratten. Sir David Lee was I think the only
person in recent years to have been advanced successively up four
levels of the Order of the British Empire—OBE(1943), CBE(1947),
KBE(1965), GBE(1969).
1.4 Neither is the potential allocation
of 885 Knights/Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire
taken up at present. I think only 280 KBE's and 245 DBE's are
allocated, so some 360 "places" at this (second) level
of the order are available. Approximate numbers of appointments
in the last eight quinquennial periods are as follows :
|
| 1964-68 |
1969-73 | 1974-78
| 1979-83 | 1984-88
| 1989-93 | 1994-98
| 1999-2003 |
|
| KBE | 126 |
92 | 91
| 92 | 56
| 50 | 46
| 37 |
| DBE | 45 |
37 | 42
| 41 | 33
| 51 | 42
| 69 |
|
1.5 The drop in the numbers of KBE's appointed over the
period 1964-2003 must in some greater part be due to the reduction,
almost to vanishing point, of awards to British Commonwealth citizens
from overseas. As far as I can see, Australia appointed its last
KBE in 1983, and New Zealand in 1995 (for the yachtsman Sir Peter
Blake, who died on expedition in December 2001). More significantly
perhaps, is a reluctance to honour men as knights with KBE's when
they can be made Knight Bachelor. The number of men with the post-nominal
letters: "Kt, CBE" exceeds those who are simply "KBE"
(because their KBE has subsumed their CBE). This seems to indicate
that advancement in the Order of the British Empire usually stops
when the "half-promotion" to Knight Bachelor is available.
1.6 The increase in DBE's appointed in the last five
years clearly stems from a desire to honour more women at this
level, but it is almost certainly over-emphasized because for
women there is no comparable honour to Knight Bachelor. The DBE
is thus the "lowest" honour which gives the prefix title
"Dame" to women, while for men, Knight Bachelor rank
entitles the holder to the prefix title "Sir", but is
still placed below the KBE in the tables of precedence.
1.7 The allocation of CBE's is stated to be 10,000 and
is currently used at the rate of perhaps 250-300 per year. I do
not know if the division between Military and Civil Divisions
still exists in the Order of the British Empire: it used to be
available at all five levels of the Order.
1.8 The two levels in the Order of the British Empire
(OBE and MBE) are nearly always awarded for particular levels
of public and community service, but increasingly for sporting
achievement. The confusion between service and achievement may
not be appropriate in the same order; and it may even be that
the use of the lower levels of an order of chivalry is not appropriate
in these cases, though some kind of state acknowledgement or award
is appropriate.
1.9 Conclusion to this Section: that the Order of the
British Empire is currently being used as a "catch-all"
for honours and this is hardly appropriate or acceptable; that
the Order of the British Empire should be "closed" as
soon as possible—just as the Orders of the Star of India
and the Indian Empire were closed in 1947; and that an alternative
new state order for people in British society should be started.
2. FUTURE HONOURS
IN BRITISH
SOCIETY
2.1 In establishing a new scheme for honours in the United
Kingdom, it is probably important NOT to create a new "order"
to replace the Order of the British Empire. Although Australia,
Canada, Jamaica and New Zealand (and maybe other Commonwealth
Countries) have named national orders after their countries, it
may well be more helpful in the future simply to refer to Honours
in British Society.
2.2 With five levels of awards in the Order of the British
Empire, there is clearly room for reducing this number. Section
1.3 of these comments indicates that the Knight/Dame Grand Cross
level—the highest level—is used much less than it
could be. I would suggest that the new honours in British Society
do not extend to this "super-plus" category.
2.3 The two lower levels—Officers and Members—should
also be discontinued. After all, all subjects, citizens and/or
residents are "Members of British Society", and a whole
variety of Officers—from Navy, Army and Airforce Officers,
to Police Officers, Chief Executive Officers in business and industry,
Nursing Officers, and so on—also already exist in British
Society. People who at present qualify for OBE's and MBE's would
be given new honours entitled "Queen's Awards"—these
could be for public service, voluntary service, community service,
service to industry, education, sport, the arts, and so on, embracing
the remit of the Honours Selection Sub-Committees which exist
at present, and allowing for more areas of Queen's Awards in future
years.
2.4 With the top, and two lower levels removed, the honours
in British Society would be restricted to two levels. One level
would correspond to the Knight/Dame Commander of the British Empire,
but would also swallow up the Knights Bachelor, and be known simply
as Knights in British Society (for men) and Dames (or perhaps
more simply, Ladies) in British Society (for women). The prefix
"Sir" and the prefix "Dame" (or Lady, if it
is preferred) would precede the name to provide a title. The post
nominal letters KBS and DBS (or LBS) would be available, but it
might well be preferable for these letters not to be used, leaving
simply Sir James Smith, and Dame Mary Jones (or perhaps, Lady
Mary Jones). Numbers of honours awarded at this level should be
fixed at 1000 (compare 100 GBE's and 885 K/DBE's giving a total
of 985 knights/dames at two levels).
2.5 The second remaining level for Honours in British
Society corresponding to the Commanders of the Order of the British
Empire would be known as Commanders in British Society. Since
there is provision for 10,000 CBE's, it does not seem unreasonable
to allow eventually the same number of CBS's with some ceiling
for the maximum number awarded in any one year. People receiving
the honour of Commander in British Society would need to be able
to display the post-nominal initials CBS, which could be retained
on promotion to Knight (or Lady) if the letters appropriate to
that rank are never used.
2.6 The vexed question of whether a husband's honour
can be transmitted to his wife, while a wife's honour cannot be
used to give a title to her husband, as happens at present, should
also be tackled. Since we have become accustomed to the style
"Baroness Blank and Mr Henry Blank", the time has probably
come for "Sir James Smith and Mrs Elizabeth Smith".
Or is this simply too contentious? I wonder. "Sir James Smith
and Lady Elizabeth Smith" would be appropriate when both
husband and wife were in receipt of honours individually (unless,
of course, Lady Elizabeth derived her title from her father, as
a duke, marquess or earl.)
2.7 Conclusion to this Section: that new "Queen's
Awards" for all kinds of service in the Community are established;
that honours in British Society be limited to two levels—Knights
and Ladies (or Dames, if the older title is preferred) at one
level, and Commanders at a lower level; and that the one-way transmission
of honours (husband to wife only, and not vice versa) should stop.
3. STREAMLINING THE
HONOURS SYSTEM
3.1 Until 1964 it was customary for a member of new hereditary
peerages to be included in the Honours lists; the last Earldom
in that category was awarded, strange as it may seem, to the veteran
labour peer, Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough. His award was
included in the New Year Honours 1963 when he was already 77 years
old; he died two years later, but having no son to succeed him
his titles became extinguished. Hereditary Viscounties and Baronies,
and Life Peerages featured in the Honours Lists of the early 1960's,
but forty years later, even life peerages have vanished from the
lists. Up to 10 peerages were included in the two annual honours
lists until 1999, but the last eight lists have contained no peerages.
3.2 Hereditary Baronetcies were also an early casualty
of the streamlining process in the honours system. With one exception
(creating Denis Thatcher a Baronet in 1991) no awards were announced
after 1964, the last of this group (Finlay of Epping) being dated
on the 31st December that year.
3.3 It was also customary to award a handful of Privy
Councillorships in the honours lists until 1999, but again, as
part of the streamlining, the last nine lists have contained no
Privy Councillors.
3.4 Two or three people have usually been made Companions
of Honour through the honours lists each year, but the total number
of Companions of Honour has been steadily diminishing over the
years. There are at present about 15 vacancies in this Order,
but there were no Companions of Honour in the New Years Honours
Lists of 2004.
3.5 When it comes to making people knights and dames
(of all classes and orders, the "streamlining" has effectively
reduced the numbers by half, as follows, in the period 1965 to
2003:
|
| Year | 1965
| 2003 |
|
| Knights and Dames in New Year Honours | 91
| 50 |
| Knights and Dames in Queen's Birthday Honours
| 109 | 53
|
| Total | 200
| 103 |
|
I have not been able to check whether awards at lower levels
in the various orders have risen to compensate, but suspect this
will be the case. Some of the reduction in numbers will be due
to various Commonwealth governments no longer nominating to British
orders—(see para 1.5, above); Commonwealth awards reached
their highest number of knights/dames in 1977, the Queen's Silver
Jubilee Year, but there were no "additional numbers"
in 2002, Golden Jubilee Year.
3.6 The fact that people, including those who receive
honours, now live longer may be inhibiting the number of honours
awarded, because the number of awards at particular levels may
be approaching the maxima. However in my counting of the awards,
which is based solely on secondary sources (yearly almanacks and
newspaper reports) this is only a problem in the Knight/Dame Commander
level of the Order of the Bath. Therefore one suspects an additional
informal restriction on numbers which may account for the drop
in numbers of knights/dames overall.
If the above paragraphs relate to past (and perhaps, present)
streamlining of the honours system, what of the future?
3.7 Closure of the Order of the British Empire, and merging
the Knights Bachelor into a new system of honours for British
Society (see para 2.4) would produce further streamlining.
3.8 It would also be possible to consider reducing the
remaining orders (The Bath, St Michael & St George, and the
Royal Victorian) to two levels from three, by eliminating the
Knight Grand Cross level. In the Order of the Bath only two persons
(apart from two members of the Royal Family) were made GCB directly
without being advanced from KCB; in the Order of St Michael &
St George (again discounting one member of the Royal Family and
some 35 Governors-General of the Commonwealth countries) only
six persons were made GCMG without first being KCMG. In the Royal
Victorian Order, Knights Grand Cross are awarded directly but
only to selected Commonwealth Governors-General, a handful of
distinguished ambassadors, and three of the Great Offices of State
(and no doubt, the other two will receive the same honour in due
course). Everyone else has to come up the ranks (KCVO to GCVO)
in the "proper manner".
3.9 Conclusion of this Section : Streamlining of the
honours system has largely occurred extensively by removal of
peerages, baronetcies and privy councillorships, and by a reduction
of the number of Knighthoods awarded; streamlining could be more
evident if the Orders of Knighthood were all limited to 2 levels:
knights and dames (or ladies) in one level; commanders at the
second level.
One final thought: Should the Order of the Companions of
Honour be restored to the gift of the Sovereign, as happened with
the Garter in 1946, and the Thistle in 1947?—both these
restorations were effected by a Labour Prime Minister.
March 2004
SHORT ANSWERS
TO THE
COMMITTEE'S
QUESTIONS
THE POSSIBILITY OF RADICAL CHANGE
Q.1a Do we need an honours system at all?
1b Do we need as many honours as we have now ?
1c Could we make do with less honours ?
Yes, if there were some alternative awards.
Q.2 What should be done about the peerage ?
It should be continued, and restored to a position in the
Honours Lists, particularly if hereditary peers leave the House
of Lords.
Q.3 [I am not qualified to know]
Q.4 What are the main functions of honours ?
To recognize distinction and excellence.
Q.5 Can an honours system do this realistically ?
Probably not exactly, but it is worth trying.
Q.6 Are the criteria for awards well known and understood
?
Probably not. [Incidentally, this question (page 5) suddenly
refers to "awards to volunteers", implying a difference
between awards and honours. There is a need for both.
Q.7 Is the award of honours bound to be subjective ?
Yes, there is no alternative.
Q.8 What is the role of peer groups ?
They would be essential if awards are separated from honours.
Q.9 [I am not qualified to know]
Q.10 What about restricting honours to those who do voluntary
work ?
This seems unnecessary, though I would suggest a specific
category of award to those working in the voluntary sector.
HONOURS AND SOCIAL DIVISIONS
Q.11 Giving equal access to honours for all citizens.
This seems like an ideal scenario, which has no practical
means of solution.
Q.12a Is the Order of the British Empire outdated ?
Yes, definitely, and in my view, it is also wrongly used at
present.
12b What should replace the Order of the British Empire
?
Honours in British Society—a status rather than an Order.
12c Should titles be abolished ?
This would be difficult when Judges, Academics, Doctors, Mayors
and Clergy have individual titles.
12d What about Dames ?
This title does seem awkward. Lords and Ladies for the peerage
"works", "Sir" and "Madam" might
be better "partners" for the knightly rank of the Order
of Chivalry, eg Sir John Smith, Madam Mary Smith.
Q.13 Should Privy Councillors continue to be "Right
Honourable" ?
Yes, especially as the post-nominal letters "PC"
are not used.
Q.14 Should levels within honours be abandoned ?
It would be helpful to reduce to no more than two levels.
Q.15 [I am not qualified to know]
PUBLIC SERVANTS AND HONOURS
Q.16 [I am not qualified to know]
Q.17 Some have a better chance of honours than others
?
So long as orders exist specifically for civil servants, diplomats
and armed forces, there will be inequalities. If the Order of
the British Empire is abandoned, the forces will have to compete
with the civil servants in the Order of the Bath only.
Q.18 The link between status and class of honour should
be broken.
It would be less apparent if there were fewer levels of honours.
Q.19 [I am not qualified to know]
Q.20 Should the numbers of outsiders on honours Committees
be increased ?
I don't think this would make much difference.
Q.21 Should people get higher pay rather than an honour
?
Definitely not—this is equivalent to "pricing"
each honour.
Q.22 Should there be less Orders in the honours system
?
Apart from the honours conferred personally by the Queen (The
Garter, The Thistle, The Order of Merit, and the Royal Victorian
Order) there are only two orders left (The Bath and St Michael
& St George) if the British Empire and Knights Bachelor are
replaced by "Honours in British Society". This does
not seem too much.
GAINING THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE
Q.23 Is the Honours system still respected ?
Yes, essentially; a few bad comments should be balanced against
the many "satisfied customers".
Q.24 Is there public dissatisfaction with the honours
system ?
We hear a handful of complaints twice a year (and they could
be from the same sources)—that is hardly "public dissatisfaction".
Q.25 Do people know they can nominate others for honours
?
Q.26 How can awareness be raised ?
[I am not qualified to know, as I have always been interested
!]
Q.27 What is your view of the present system of nominations
?
It seems to work—leave it alone.
Q.28 Should there be more nominations from the public
?
No, I don't think this would be helpful.
Q.29 Should full citations for honours be published ?
No, I don't think this would be helpful.
Q.30 Will more openness lead to embarrassments ?
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNANCE
Q.31 Is there evidence of political abuse of the honours
system ?
[I am not qualified to know]
Q.32 What role should Parliament, Scottish Parliament
& Welsh Assembly play ?
I think it best if the parliaments/assembly stay out of this.
Q.33 Do we need a Parliamentary "Medal of Honour"
Q.34 Do we need a wider independent role for the Honours
Scrutiny Committee ?
[I am not qualified to know, but everything seems to work,
as it is]
| 
