Select Committee on Public Administration Written Evidence


Memorandum by Rt Hon Lord Hurd of Westwell, CH CBE (HON 73)

  As suggested in the Committee's paper on issues and questions I only attempt to comment on matters which have fallen within my personal experience. This covers service as a member of the House of Commons from 1974 to 1997 and as Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary between 1985 and 1995. I am at present a member of the Honours Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

  There is a widespread feeling that success in life cannot be measured simply by wealth or fame. Both these measurements are of course used every day but in a decent society other measurements are needed and that is the underlying justification for the Honours system. The system should attempt to recognise in particular those who have worked hard and scored achievements not just for themselves but for others. The system should consciously seek to counter balance the modern preoccupation with celebrity by seeking out those whose service and achievement might otherwise go unnoticed. This process of seeking out requires both the present techniques, ie public nomination and selection, together constituting a process removed from everyday politics and media pressure.

  A point not particularly noticed in the Committee's paper on issues and questions concerns the link with the country's past. The Honours system brings its recipients into a relationship with that past of which most are proud. Hence the importance of retaining the Queen as the fount of honour as illustrated in particular by the process of investiture. Recently I listened to a discussion of the Monarchy on a local radio station which reached a climax when a young man described how he went to Buckingham Palace to receive an MBE from the Prince of Wales. For the first time, he said he felt proud to be British. This reaction may seem unsophisticated, but in my experience it is widespread and too valuable to be ignored.

  For that reason I would favour retaining the different Orders in their present form. I see no harm in keeping the separate Orders for state servants and no benefit could compensate the hurt which would be caused by abolishing them. There is a specific minor point as regards the diplomatic service. It is sometimes argued that a Knighthood is required by senior British Ambassadors in particular posts if they are to do their job properly. That is not an argument which I have ever accepted.

  For the same reason it would be wise to retain the much larger Order of the British Empire with its different components. The proposed alternative Order of Britain would be regarded as flat and flavourless. It would demolish the valuable sense of continuity with the past.

  The increased emphasis on rewarding voluntary work since John Major's reform is correct. But it is also right that state servants should be rewarded for service and achievement which goes beyond the ordinary. Whatever the system of financial compensation in the public services that will never be a substitute for a flexible system of individual recognition. One of the Wilson review papers points out the imbalance of Honours within the public sector. There is a strong case for reducing that imbalance by increasing the proportion of awards given eg to teachers and nurses within the Order of the British Empire. There is a case for increasing the number of independent outsiders who sit on the Honours Committees, though I doubt whether the present composition creates any serious conflict of interest within the Civil Service.

  As regards titles, these give pleasure to those who have them and are in other respects harmless. Snobbery in our society now gathers mainly round celebrities without a title. Because of the hereditary peerage there will continue to be titles in our society whether or not the remaining hereditaries are excluded from the House of Lords. Baronets too will continue. It would be somewhat bizarre if the only titles in our society were those which the holders had done nothing to earn. I can see no possible reason for abolishing the title of "Rt Hon." for Privy Councillors. This is an important and constitutional distinction which can reasonably be marked by more than a couple of initials at the end of the surname.

  So far these comments have been overwhelmingly on the conservative side. On two important aspects my own views are more radical:

    1.  Relationship between party politics and honours. I agree strongly with the views expressed to the Committee by my colleagues Lord Thomson and Baroness Dean of the Honours Scrutiny Committee on February 26th. There is no case now for having two separate scrutiny bodies, one (the Lords Appointments Commission) dealing with peerages and the other (Honours Scrutiny Committee) with Knights, Dames and CBE's. But the desirable fusion of these two bodies does not solve the problem of the connection between party political contributions and the award either of peerages or honours. At present the political parties provide certificates to the two scrutinising bodies. These certificates declare that there is no connection between the honour and any donations to a political party. This is not entirely satisfactory; the procedure still leaves the whiff of an implied bargain in the air. It would not be reasonable to say that no one who makes a political donation should receive a peerage or honour. On the other hand the scrutinising body could be specifically asked to assess whether in their view the case for a peerage or senior honour would be sufficiently substantial if there had been no political donation. Raising money for political parties is a necessary activity, and the going is tough. But we have reached a point where party leaders should tell the fundraisers that even hints about knighthoods or working peerages are unacceptable and likely to backfire. It would be healthy if Members of Parliament who have given particularly distinguished service should wait until that service had come to an end before receiving a peerage or honour. The same should apply to editors, broadcasters and journalists.

    2.  There is a temptation, particularly for Prime Ministers, to blur the essential distinction between celebrity and distinguished service. Prime Ministers and those who advise them should not be afraid of producing a "dull" honours list. They should be aware that the system becomes corrupted if they seek to gain glitter for themselves by honouring people who are already household names. A brilliant footballer or a world famous pop star is not necessarily deserving of an honour, even though the award would be acclaimed by every tabloid newspaper. Celebrities do of course often use their fame to advance some public good and there is no reason why this should not be recognised, provided the effort requires some real sacrifice on their part as opposed to the mere lending of a name.

  On this aspect, as on the link with politics, a more puritan attitude by Prime Ministers and their advisers may in the short run produce criticism, but in the longer run will help to strengthen the reputation of a system which is important to achieving a decent balance of reputations in our society.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 13 July 2004