Sir Thomas Macpherson of Biallid, CBE
MC TD DL (HON 71)
1. I do not think it is correct that there
was a "recent intense controversy" over honours. There
was a minor and rapidly extinct flurry in the press following
a "leak" which aroused remarkably little public interest.
2. The question of what is done politically
with the second chamber is irrelevant to the status of the heredity
peerage, which endures.
3. The honours system, replicated by most
countries in different forms, divides into awards for people who
have achieved prominence by outstanding national service and people
who have achieved merit by assiduous and locally well-appreciated
community service. Self-evidently the former should be scarce
and of high distinction, the latter should be a clear recognition
and widespread.
4. No person should be awarded a national
honour for simply doing their job. (Consequently the automated
system for public servants should end).
5. Of course the criteria cannot be set
down in detail. Merit is diverse and its recognition is certainly
more an art than a science. The occasional blip in the form of
an honour whose merit is far from self-evident is sufficiently
rare to allow general public confidence in the system to continue.
Grumbles come in the main from personal discontent.
6. On minor matters, it is not important
whether certain titles like Sir or Dame are used elsewhere. (They
are, of course—in certain Commonwealth countries—in
Italy "Cavaliere" and "Commendatore"—the
honorific "Don" in Spain—"Datu" in Malaysia,
and so on). We are perfectly entitled in Britain to have our own
systems, even if criticised by a deceased pop singer. And why
shouldn't Privy Counsellors be called Right Honourable? If they
behave otherwise, sack them.
7. There is a strong argument for discontinuing
the Order of the British Empire and rolling it up with the Bath
or St. Michael and St. George.
8. What does "equal access" mean?
The same procedures and standards are applied to all.
9. Public nominations play an important
part and are becoming well understood. Equally nominations by
institutions—CBI, TUC, universities, etc. etc. But the final
judgement must be independent. It would be ridiculous to ban the
assessors from honours—rather they should be people who
already have honours. To repeat, just doing your job even for
many years is not enough. The award is for going the extra mile—contributing
far more than the norm, with a heavy bias towards doing this on
a voluntary basis.
10. Specific Questions
23—No. 24—Yes. 25—Yes. 26—No
action. 27—Subject to certain caveats above. 28—No
change needed. All nomination system could become unmanageable.
29—No—a little healthy mystery is attractive! 30—Yes.
31—No. 32—Absolutely none. 33—No. 34—Yes.
March 2004
| 
