Memorandum by Sir Conrad Swan LKCVO (HON
70)
1. Yes, the United Kingdom needs an honours
system. It is only the impolite who do not say, "Thank you",
and that applies both to nations as well as to people. Bearing
in mind the size of the population, some 300,000 awards per year
is not overly generous, and 10 or 100 would, in my opinion, be
ridiculous—there is much more excellence about in this country
than those small numbers would reflect.
2. The hereditary peerage, in or out of
the House of Lords, should be kept as it is, a living monument
to service to the nation and of great historical importance. Impiety
is a dishonourable attitude in any form.
3. The experience of other countries should
teach us to keep close to our own, home-grown system which is
much respected abroad.
4. Yes, there is a future in the honours
system to recognize distinctions in particular fields, to reward
service, to pay tribute to those who best represent the nation's
values—and those who through sheer determination overcome
physical problems.
5. Nothing human is perfect, but our honours
system can strive for perfection.
6. The criteria for awards are, probably,
not as well known and understood as they should be. A series of
quiet, well thought out pamphlets, articles in newspapers, occasional
talks on the television and wireless would help greatly.
7. The award of an honour is bound to be
the result of "an art rather than of a science'—as
are almost all other purely human decisions (and none the worse
for that).
8. Peer groups: such as professional, business,
academic, occupation bodies should be asked to provide their opinion
concerning the recommending of candidates for honours.
9. No.
10. The merits of all legitimate human endeavours
should be recognized and not simply voluntary work, excellent
though it is.
11. An organized, disciplined system whereby
any person may propose anyone for consideration of an honour would
help towards equity—the recommendation to be assessed independently,
of course.
12. The British Empire, to mention just
a few attributes,
(a)
was the first country to abolish the slave trade
(b)
was the first to abolish slavery
(c)
spread and applied a legal system, second to none
in equity over much of the globe where, in succeeding independent
states, it is still applied
(d)
handed over voluntarily, to self governing independence
in respect about 9/10 of its overseas possessions
(e)
provided what is now the "universal language'
(f)
over many years, granted a safe home to thousands
of refugees who sought, with expectations not disappointed, freedom
(g)
inspired the foundation of a Society of Honour known
as the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in recognition
of the excellent work by those many people, of the most humble
status in society, who were the backbone of the industrial war
effort of World War 1
(h)
et cetera, et cetera.
The British Empire was not perfect—what
human institution is? But the world would be a poorer place nowadays
if it had not existed.
We should be immensely proud of the record of
the British Empire and so keep that Society of Honour named in
its honour. Such may not be politically correct—every age
has its political correctness—but it is a valid sentiment,
nevertheless—just ask those families, originally from abroad,
who have had the benefit of its sense of "fair play' and
liberty.
In our system of honours, this Order takes care
of all that excellence which can not be recognised through the
other Orders.
13. Yes, the style of Right Honourable for
Privy Counsellors should continue. It reminds one of the historical
fact that whereas originally Privy Counsellors were almost invariably
Peers—and so Right Honourable automatically—nevertheless
ability to contribute positively to the deliberations of the Privy
Council is not confined to those of the Peerage alone, so by a
long historical process, others have been admitted and this honourable
distinction makes that patent.
14. It was Napoleon who first started multi-graded
honours with the Legion d'Honneur, and such is an extremely convenient
arrangement when one has to recognise excellence in the lowest
as well as the highest fields of endeavour, as well as all those
in between.
15. The question is asked, ". . . should
there be an increase in the proportion of women and minority ethnic
people on Honours Committees?'. In such matters concern over sex
or ethnicity may, upon occasions, be helpful. However, some people,
today, overlook the fact that competence is independent of being
found in man/woman/White/Black/non-United Kingdom descent and
so on and so on: the possession of competence does not depend
upon such factors though some fall for this modern shibboleth.
16. Those in the public administration system
in the United Kingdom could, in the private sector, have earned
much more. However, the possibility of an honour recognizing their
good work urges them forward to produce the best.
17. Civil Servants, Diplomats and Military
Force members—no matter how hard they might work—can
never earn more money as their salaries are set at fixed levels.
Accordingly, honours compensate and recognize their good work.
18. Excellence will always attract the highest
rewards.
19. If peer groups (as in Question 8 above)
are a good thing for keeping an eye on how the system works, then
mutates mutandis for Civil Servants being the main judges in assessing
other civil Servants' awards.
20. A mixture of independent "outsiders'
with peer groups could well help towards "fair play' in honours
committees—just a few. One does not want the "peers'
feeling they are not trusted While serving on a committee, members
should not receive honours, but after retirement from the Committee
they should be on the same footing as anyone else for the possibility
of an honour.
21. To try to equate higher pay with honours
in not possible. The satisfaction experienced because of the one
is not the same as that experience because of the other.
22. No, for the reasons given in answer
to Question 17 above. Also such a move of reducing the number
of Orders would "push out' the non-state servants. This idea
is, in the opinion of this author, simply one of change for change
sake.
23. No.
24. Yes.
25. No, and see the answer to Question 6
above.
26. As in the preceding
27. On balance, this system is fair.
28. The system does not need fundamental
changes so that all honours are awarded as a result of public
nominations. Such a change would ignore many who are now catered
for the present official "departmental' nominations.
29. Full citations would be no bad thing—and
a boon to future historians(!)
30. Yes.
31. There will always be the temptation
for those forming the government of the day to favour unduly members
of their own party—after all, Original Sin is universal
even among Governments as well as Oppositions, mirabile dictum(!)
but, by and large the British seem to keep a reasonable balance.
32. None whatsoever. The function of parliamentary
bodies is for debating changes in the law; not for saying "well
done'.
33. Certainly not, for the same reasons
as given in the preceding. Further, the honours system in the
United States is seminal, if not primitive, compared with that
of the United Kingdom.
34. This author thinks not.
Conrad Swan
March 2004
| 
