Memorandum by Robin Eve CC (HON 69)
INTRODUCTION
My general view is that there is merit in an
honours system. However, there is little merit in retaining the
titles which go with certain honours. I hold two foreign decorations
but no honorific title is bestowed. That does not in any way reduce
the respect for the honours, particularly for one which is on
a very restricted numerical distribution.
As to the peerage I see no harm in courtesy
titles for inherited peerages—arguably they are simply names—but
there can be no justification for titles for life peerages which
simply reflect membership of a reviewing chamber.
Post nominal initials might be continued and
Members of the House of Lords ( perhaps one might consider a different
title) could be given a suitable set of initials.
QUESTIONS
1. Most countries have an honours system
and the UK is no different. There is need for fewer and more significant
awards.
2. There is no need or, indeed, justification
for a title to go with Membership of the Upper House which is,
after all, only a reviewing chamber.
3. Other countries do not award pre-nominals
or titles. Titles are divisive in a democratic society.
4. Awards should be for service above and
beyond the call of employment.
5. Yes. Witness other countries which have
various honours designated to special fields.
6. Criteria are not known and not understood
by the general population For example most people do not recognise
the difference between MBE, OBE, etc.
7. No comment.
8. No comment
9. I do not see why.
10. No comment
11. No comment—but I would approve
of a system if it could be devised.
12. There is a general understanding of
the Order of the British Empire but it does have a somewhat wistful
interpretation. Perhaps it is time to have a simple Order of Merit
as used widely by other countries or, alternatively have one based
on the national flag.
Titles should be abolished. It is the height
of absurdity that the addition of a class two honour should automatically
change Mr John Smith to Sir John Smith—and even more ludicrous
that his wife should become Lady Smith (it does not happen with
women's titles).
13. The title Rt. Honourable should perhaps
be retained for serving ministers and ex ministers still in the
House of Commons and those otherwise entitled as long as they
hold the office which entitled them.
14. Most countries do retain several grades—generally
five. Certainly more than one is required in order to reflect
different levels of achievement (but see (4) above)
15. Perhaps the Honours Committee might
more accurately reflect the population as a whole.
16. I believe it is a motivating force.
17. It was only fair when financial rewards
of employment in the public sector were modest—if not downright
low. With rewards at the upper levels now in excess of £200,000
pa with fully indexed final salary pensions they are most certainly
not.
18. Probably not.
19. Yes, of course. Hence my suggestion
at (15).
20. Yes, I believe strongly that the hold
of the civil service should be broken. I would support a fully
independent committee (including independence from the Prime Minister
and the Cabinet Office).
21. Higher echelons receive good rewards
(see (17)). On retirement they not only receive good pensions
but at the higher levels also, on retirement, collect a good number
of highly paid sinecures.
22. I am not sure about cutting down but
state servants should have to compete on exactly equal terms as
everyone else—particularly in respect of giving something
extra to justify the awards.
23. Yes. For many the honours system is
based on false values.
24. It becomes a live issue generally when
someone known gets or does not get an honour.
25. I suspect that the general public are
better informed than they were.
26. Perhaps by having information readily
available at public offices, libraries, etc.
27. The proportions are wrong. Most should
come from the public or other organisations—such as local
authorities, public bodies etc.
28. There is room for some retention of
recommendation from central bodies such as government but it should
be a small percentage.
29. Yes, of course there should be more
openness and a full citation should be published.
30. Perhaps, but so what?
31. There is evidence of political abuse—merely
look at the rewards given to party faithfuls. The Prime Minister
and the Cabinet Office should be removed from the Honours system.
Let the Prime Minister make his recommendations to the Committee
as does everyone else.
32. Very little directly. Perhaps by the
nomination of Members of the Committee.
33. Yes, an excellent idea.
34. Yes.
March 2004
| 
