Memorandum by Mr P H Courtenay (HON 68)
1. An honours system is certainly needed.
The numbers should be immaterial, being based on merit; 10 or
100 annual awards would be far too restrictive, while a very large
number would degrade the value, so the current figure of 3,000
is probably about right.
2. It would be a great loss to national
tradition and continuity if hereditary titles were to be abolished
(even if holders no longer sit in the House of Lords). Oscar Wilde
wrote: "You should study the Peerage, Gerald; it is the best
thing in fiction the English have ever done" (A Woman of
No Importance). Occasional additions to the hereditary ranks for
royal persons and in exceptional cases should be made and would
make no difference to the political process. Life peerages should
continue to be given to those sitting in the House of Lords, unless
it became an elected chamber with limited tenure, when a different
situation would arise. The very limited number of hereditary peerages
awarded since 1958 (York/Wessex/Stockton/Whitelaw/Tonypandy) shows
what can be done.
3. The French wear a small ribbon or rosette
in their buttonholes to show membership of eg The Legion of Honour,
but I can't see such an idea being followed here. The US system,
by contrast, proliferates and is almost valueless. It is worth
recognising that UK insignia are far superior to those of other
nations (in matters of design, taste, quality and relevance) and
should not be discarded in favour of less creditable examples.
4. All three of the criteria are needed.
It is virtually inevitable that any system would reward those
at or near the peak of their callings. If, for example a CGS or
PUS had not received a high honour before reaching the top of
the tree (which might be possible under a drastic reform), it
would be difficult to answer the inevitable question "How
come he has reached the top of the ladder, but has never been
good enough to be recognised on the way up, while others not so
selected have been honoured?"
5. Yes; very easily.
6. No; the ordinary man in the street couldn't
care less. Those who might care understand well enough (except
for TV quiz-masters who think OBE stands for Order of the British
Empire).
7. Probably Yes at the lower levels, but
more scientific at the higher end.
8. Such groups should certainly be invited
to make nominations, but it should be made clear that there is
no automatic expectation of an award just because it has been
made in the past.
9. Probably not: an honour should be for
past service rather than for anticipated quality.
10. Far too restrictive. No one these days
can afford to live without salaried employment; voluntary activity,
while meritorious, cannot be the only criterion.
11. Through bodies such as those proposed
in Question 8, plus a wider range of other groups.
12. The Order of the British Empire was
created in 1917 and its centenary is within view. It would be
vandalism to change the name just because some people in 2004
are dubious about its connotations. The British Empire was an
astounding national achievement and it is right to mark its existence.
The people who lived in this country during its heyday were immensely
proud of it (particularly among the working class), and it is
not unreasonable to suppose that future generations will take
a similar view; we should not dismantle something because of a
passing fad. After all, no one wears a garter nowadays or takes
a bath for spiritual cleansing, and such traditional names are
part of our national life. As for titles such as Sir, Dame, Lord,
Lady, Baron etc, these are part of our long national tradition.
It is sometimes suggested (and even hinted in this paper) that
because no other country has a system like ours, we should abandon
it; this is the precise opposite of the correct deduction which
is that, because we are unique, we should remain so.
13. This is not essential, though (as stated
elsewhere) traditions should not be cast aside. If Rt Hon was
discarded, those concerned could put PC after their names; this
is currently done only by peers (because their peerages already
give them the Rt Hon prefix and their PC membership would not
otherwise be apparent).
14. A single category would mean "inflation",
so that really senior roles would be downgraded.
15. Quite unnecessary. Any quota of women
or ethnic minorities on the Committee would inevitably lead to
such persons favouring their own categories. The current system
allows Committee members to bend over backwards to be fair.
16. I don't think it affects matters either
way. I was in the public service for 35 years and then in quasi-public
bodies for 10 years. I never met anyone who worried about receiving
or not receiving an honour; if it came, everyone was very pleased
for them, but angst did not play a part.
17. It is inevitable that these groups have
better chances of receiving honours because of their proximity
to the Government machine, which makes it much easier for them
to come to notice. It should not be overlooked that, in the case
of the military and diplomats, recipients have regular and frequent
opportunities to wear their insignia, whereas most people probably
never do so after their investitures. Lower pay expectations than
the private sector are usually cited as justification for a higher
allocation of honours; this is less true nowadays, but still has
some validity.
18. Probably not, nor is there any need.
It is quite possible (indeed normal) for a hereditary peer in
the armed forces to receive the low award of MBE while a junior
officer. No one questions these gradations, except perhaps the
politically motivated (ie the tiny minority).
19. Probably inevitable. But very few people
are involved and can be assumed to be of high integrity who would
have good chances of an honour later, even without close involvement
in the system.
20. Some independent outsiders could be
involved, but this is window-dressing; after all they would have
to appointed by the Government. A ban on honours for Committee
members could only work if members were known to be at the end
of their careers and unlikely to gain an honour on their own merits;
but this would prevent the best people from being invited. A time-bar
would be more realistic (no eligibility till, say, three years
after leaving the Committee).
21. Higher pay is much more contentious
than honours and should be avoided.
22. Certainly not. If the Order of the Bath
and the Order of St Michael & St George were abolished, there
would be far fewer opportunities for others to be admitted to
the Order of the British Empire. And once again, tradition is
valuable and cannot be replaced; there were, after all, Knights
of the Bath at the coronation of Henry IV in 1399. There has already
been enough constitutional vandalism in recent years. Enough is
enough!
23. Marginally. Most people are ignorant
of the system and couldn't care less.
24. Probably.
25. Improbable.
26. Probably not possible; also unnecessary.
27. I am not generally in favour of nominations
by the public. If someone is deserving, this should be known by
Government and local bodies. After all it is the Sovereign who
makes awards (mostly on the advice of the Government)-not Joe
Public.
28. Certainly not. An "all-nominations"
system would result in too many so-called celebrities being named,
as entertainment and sports personalities are the names which
most people know and admire through television.
29. There could be no problem with increased
understanding of the system or publication of citations. But the
pros and cons of selection, or publication of rejections or refusals,
must be kept confidential.
30. Very much so.
31. Not known; probably not.
32. None; the system would become too politicised.
33. Absolutely not. The Sovereign is the
Fount(ain) of Honour-acting on the advice of the Government-and
must remain so if an honour is to have any validity.
34. Probably.
SOME GENERAL
VIEWS
A. There appear to be far too many showbiz
and sports personalities on each list. Maybe this appears to be
so because only well-known names hit the headlines; but those
who are very highly paid and doing work they greatly enjoy should
not be preferred over others of greater national value.
B. There is one anomaly in the current system.
If a man is given a knighthood, he normally becomes a Knight Bachelor,
which ranks below KBE. But there is no equivalent to Knight Bachelor
for a woman, who-in identical circumstances-must become DBE and
thus receive a higher honour than her male counterpart. I have
no clever suggestions on how to resolve this (Dame Spinster wouldn't
do!)
C. Recent publicity given to those who have
refused honours on principle gives the opposite effect to that
which is probably intended by the refusenik. When someone refuses
an honour (whether Kt or MBE), he effectively makes the following
statement: "Any pat on the back from the Head of State, on
the recommendation of the Head of Government, is no sort of honour
to me: I'm much too grand and important to be expected to bend
the knee to anyone"; it would be hard to find a better example
of arrogance. I saw a recent newspaper headline which summed up
the value of national honours in a way I hadn't seen before and
which should be borne in mind by anyone meddling in this subject:
IT EXALTS THE HUMBLE AND HUMBLES THE EXALTED.
Paul Courtenay
March 2004
| 
