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.
| 
