Memorandum by Sir Roger Sims (HON 67)
You may recall that I was a Member of Parliament
for 23 years, from 1974 until I retired in 1997. During that period
I made, or supported a number of nominations for honours and was,
of course, myself a recipient in 1996. So I read with interest
your Committee's Consultation Paper on the Honours System. Conscious
of the volume of paperwork with which Select Committees have to
deal I confine my comments to a few points.
I am in no doubt that honours should be retained
as an inexpensive means of recognising service. An award gives
great pleasure to the recipient and his or her family and friends,
but it should also be realised that it may mean a great deal to
a wider circle—people working in the recipient's department,
company or voluntary organisation. I was surprised, when I was
knighted, to learn the extent to which various charities and other
bodies with which I was involved felt that they, too, had been
honoured!
As to the criteria for honours they should surely
be for having done a job over a number of years particularly well,
"over and above the call of duty", and in all walks
of life, whether in commerce and industry, the trades unions,
the professions, the arts, the civil or diplomatic service or
the armed services. They should also be awarded in recognition
of conspicuous and sustained voluntary service to the community.
It follows, in my view, that an honour should
not be automatic when a particular level is reached in the civil
or diplomatic service. And I see no reason why service in politics
should no longer be eligible for recognition. Whether I met my
own criteria is not for me to judge, but I can certainly think
of several Labour MPs who did but were deprived of appropriate
recognition by their party's policy on this matter. ( I note that
there have recently been a few honours for "service to Parliament
" but not "political service"—a fine distinction!).
It also seems to me that there should be a clear
distinction between honours awarded for the reasons I have listed
and any made to members of the armed forces for specific acts
in conflict situations. It seems quite inappropriate to mark an
action of bravery by a soldier by, say, an MBE such as might,
rightly, be given to a diligent and long serving postman.
Whether existing categories of honours remain
or are replaced, I see no objection to there being different categories
or levels. Both the postman to whom I have referred and a brilliant
heart surgeon who has saved many lives deserve recognition, but
not necessarily in the same manner.
I would comment, however, that there is a notable
difference in the public perception of those whose honour carries
a prefix of Lord, Sir or Dame and those with a suffix. I am usually
addressed on formal occasions and in correspondence as "Sir
Roger" whereas two of my acquaintances who are Commanders
of the British Empire, one level below KBE, are simply "Mr"
or "Miss" and probably only those who know them well
are aware that they have been honoured. However, I am not sure
how desirable, or practicable it would be to introduce additional
prefixes- and, needless to say, I am not advocating the abolition
of the existing ones!
As to public confidence in the honours system,
my impression is that despite recent press revelations it remains
quite high and there is generally popular support for it. But
whilst I would not expect success in respect of every nomination
I have made or supported, I have been surprised that a few which
seemed to me very well merited have failed to reach any Honours
List and this has led to a sense of disillusion amongst those
supported them.
I hope that my thoughts are of some help to
my erstwhile colleagues on the Committee, and wish them well in
their deliberations.
March 2004
| 
