Memorandy by P J Stanbridge (HON 75)
GENERAL ISSUES
Question 1: Need For and Number of Honours
The honours system in Britain has always been
highly regarded by the general public and by the many other countries
around the world that are familiar with it. To judge from the
almost universal use of honours systems by other countries, they
are valued as a means of binding nation and state together.
The number of honours awarded each year should
be sufficient for them to be seen to be within the reach of ordinary
people, without debasing their value or imposing unreasonably
on the royal stamina. The present number, apparently around 3,000
a year, or about 0.0075% of the adult population, is probably
about right.
Question 2: Future of the Peerage
Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of
confusion and misunderstanding since the Middle Ages as to the
purpose of the House of Lords and the nature of the Peerage, and
it persists to the present day. Without first clarifying this
question, therefore, it is impossible to comment usefully on the
future of the Peerage.
The House of Lords, formerly known as the Great
Council, is the oldest element in the constitution and its only
permanent institution (Parliaments only come into being when summoned
by the Sovereign, and the Sovereign reigns only between the time
of his or her coronation and his or her death, abdication, or
deposition (the notion of the uncrowned monarch having been a
legal fiction since the time of Edward I). The origin of this
institution lies in the kinship structure of early English society.
This has long since gone, but the principle that the "elders"
or "wise" men of the nation should counsel the King
and ensure the continuity and observance of the constitution remained
a basic feature of common law. Even in Anglo-Saxon times there
was provision for exceptional individuals who were not clan chieftains
or heads of communities to acquire noble status, and so become
potential advisers to the Crown through the "Witena-gemot",
or Council of Wise Men, today known as the House of Lords. In
more settled times, the criterion for rising to noble status was
usually the accumulation of wealth, whether by trade or industry,
provided it could be sustained by two or more generations. This
was proof of ability, rather than luck, and allowed time for the
social standing of an upstart family to become accepted. Conversely,
leading families that failed and became impoverished could rapidly
lose their status as elders of the nation.
Unfortunately, the institution was compromised
by the Normans after 1066, when the the original and accepted
elders—the earls and aldermen—were usurped by foreign
"barons". Adding to the animosity and friction between
them and the people was the Norman introduction of the feudal
system. Church doctrine on the monarchy and procedural difficulties
encountered during the restoration of Parliament in the 13th and
14th centuries further complicated the position of the Great Council,
or Lords, generating inter-institutional rivalry and hostility
which have bedevilled the working of the constitution ever since.
The important point to emerge from all this, so far as we are
concerned, is that the Peerage should comprise those individuals—men
and women—who, through their ability and public standing,
have earned or retained the right to be regarded as the elders
of British society.
The American Senate has been an attempt to retain
the Upper House without the hereditary principle, and in order
to avoid any aristocratic implication, the American colonists
turned for inspiration to the Roman Senate. This also is instructive.
The Roman Senate was the same institution in origin as the House
of Lords, and consisted of the elders of the ruling families,
themselves the original Roman clans. Because an hereditary elder
could not inherit the position until the death of the previous
holder of the position, he rarely did so before reaching middle
age. Hence, the name of the Roman Senate was related to the word
senex, "old man" (a term usually applied by the Romans
to one who was 40 years of age and over). This is important, because
maturity has always been an implicit qualification for the House
of Lords, ensuring that its members have the advantage of a seasoned
experience of public and private life on which to draw.
In spite of its democratic pretensions, the
American Senate has tended to follow a similar course. Once elected,
American Senators are apt to be returned for life, so that seats
in the Senate are often little better than sinecures. There has
also been a tendency for "leading families" to appear
and to be preferred by voters to young candidates from unknown
families. This tells us something about what the public looks
for in an Upper House. It lends support to the constitutional
principle underlying the House of Lords, that, like the Roman
Senate, it satisfies the popular need for a stabilizing element,
comprising mature, experienced and able men and women who command
general respect and confidence. This contrasts with the Lower
House, which is elected to represent the actual wishes of the
people. It is because the people do not always trust their own
judgement, and are not infrequently faced with issues on which
they do not feel competent to judge, that they feel a need for
guidance from the Upper House in times of difficulty. The most
notable example of this was in 1215, when the Council forced King
John to sign the Magna Carta. Today that guidance has become limited
very largely to the review of Bills approved by the Commons.
The House of Lords has often been described
as the world's best Upper House, because of the integrity of its
members and the quality of its advice in legislative matters.
Undoubtedly, this has owed much to its members' education and
years of experience and responsibility in public and business
life prior to being admitted to the Chamber. Nevertheless, there
has been much "dead wood" among the hereditary Peers,
not all of whom merit their "elder" status, and it is
likely that this problem, as well as the excessive size of membership
of the Chamber, has now been solved by requiring them to elect
a minority of their number to sit in the House. This leaves unresolved
the question of the choice and general calibre of Life Peers.
By its very nature, an Upper House is, and needs
to be, conservative in its approach to public policy. That is
part of its purpose in ensuring good government, but good government
also imposes upon it a duty to draw attention to gaps and other
deficiencies in Government policy, even to the extent of calling
for innovative measures. The House of Commons tends to be occupied
with the issues of the day and Party agendas, and it is part of
the role of the Upper House to supplement this. One of the biggest
mistakes made by the House of Lords was to allow itself to become
involved in the Party politics of the Lower Chamber. Like the
Monarchy, the House of Lords should stand aloof from the political
Parties, otherwise its function is compromised. It follows that
no person who is, or has been, identified with a political Party
should sit in the Upper House, or be involved in the selection
of candidates.
Quite apart from the problem of hereditary Peers
who no longer merit the accolade of "elders of the people",
it has been recognised since before the Middle Ages that not all
acknowledged "elders" of the people are confined to
the hereditary Peerage. Even in late Anglo-Saxon times it was
usual for the King to admit lesser individuals—usually "King's
thanes"—to his council, and it was the practice of
Henry VIII to draw some of his Councillors from the House of Commons.[3]
It underlines the need, not only for a procedure to remove unsatisfactory
Peers from the Upper House, but also for a procedure to identify
and recommend appropriate individuals from the commonalty for
elevation to the Life Peerage. In a population of some 60 million
citizens, of whom perhaps 20 million fall within the candidacy
range, this calls for a research facility better equipped and
less clumsy than simply inviting nominations. The most appropriate
body to deal with this is probably the Privy Council, without
its Party members.
As the Committee is well aware—although
the point is worth re-stating—the Peerage refers to those
of the nobility, whether by heredity or life appointment, who
actually sit in the House, in which differences of rank are ignored
and all are given an equal right to speak. Once outside the House
again, their individual status is again recognised and they cease
to be "peers".
To summarize: it is suggested that, constitutionally,
the Peerage comprises those who are, or who can reasonably be
expected to be, accepted and respected as elders of the nation
on account of their experience, maturity of judgement and personal
integrity. Just as appropriate individuals should continue to
be elevated by the Sovereign to the Peerage, and once elevated
should normally retain their seats for life, so also the Sovereign
should exercise her original prerogative to dispense with Peers
who no longer merit their position by "permitting them to
retire", so releasing them from further service in the House.
No person associated, or previously associated, with a political
Party should sit in the Upper House, or be involved in recommending
apppointments to the House. This need not affect the right of
the Sovereign to continue to bestow her highest honour of granting
titles, hereditary or otherwise, for outstanding service, albeit
without any corresponding right to sit in the House of Lords.
Question 3: Learning From Other Countries
What other countries do has little relevance.
Great Britain has a much older and richer tradition of honours
than is to be found almost anywhere else, and the extent to which
it is envied is shown by the millions outside this country who
watch the more formal constitutional events on television.
THE PURPOSE
OF HONOURS
Question 4: The Function of Honours
The purpose of an honour is recognition. As
the honours in question are bestowed by the Head of State, it
is appropriate that they be granted for, either:
1.
outstanding service to the state or the nation, or
2.
the achievement of distinction, in one field or another,
that reflects credit upon, or brings exceptional benefit to, the
state or the nation.
There should be an important proviso, however,
that an honour should not be granted for an achievement or service
where an adequate reward, financial or otherwise, has already
been received. As the purpose of an honour is recognition, it
becomes superfluous where adequate recognition has been enjoyed
by other means, such as successful actresses who have received
generous plaudits, or footballers who have been highly paid.
Question 8: The Role of Peer Groups
Peer groups are usually the best judges of the
attainments of their members, particularly in technical fields.
How they go about it should be left to them to decide, provided
they can justify their choice of candidates. All selection systems
should be open to investigation, particularly where there are
complaints or rumours of dissatisfaction.
Question 10: Restriction to Voluntary Work
The criteria proposed earlier for deciding awards
make no distinction between voluntary and other work.
HONOURS AND
SOCIAL DIVISIONS
Question 11: Equal Access to Honours
It is not clear what this means. If the suggestion
is that equal achievements (in so far as any two achievements
can be measured so accurately), regardless of race, sex, or religion,
should by rewarded equally, this writer is in full agreement.
If the suggestion is that honours should be distributed pro rata
according to the size of each group in the population, or on any
basis other than actual attainment, then this would represent
a corruption of the honours system. Ultimately, many would be
deprived of recognition because they had the misfortune to belong
to the largest group, while others would have honours "dished
out" to them simply to make up the numbers. When the Wilson
Review concluded that the committees which produce recommendations
for honours are "a predominantly white, male, elderly elite",
this is probably because such people have always provided the
great majority of achievers in public life.
If it is being suggested that the selectors
are biassed in favour of their own race, sex or age-group, then
this must be proved. If it is indeed the case, then selection
committees that were engineered so as to consist of, say, equal
numbers of whites and non-whites, males and females, young and
elderly, would have the effect of distorting the selection even
more, bearing in mind that real achievement is almost certainly
not evenly spread between the groups.
Question 12: Some Honours Are Outdated
Does "outdated" mean unfashionable,
appropriate to another era, or no longer serving a practical purpose?
Fashions go but often return, and honours cannot be devised and
jettisoned in this manner. If it is proper to dispense with something
because it is appropriate to another era, then it surely follows
that buildings such as St Paul's Cathedral and Windsor Castle
are outdated and should be demolished, just as all art belonging
to the 19th century should be destroyed for the same reason. This
would really be an act of self-destruction, because our civilisation
is the sum total of all that has gone before. It is not an argument
for keeping everything, but we must not stand accused by later
generations of cultural vandalism, a charge that can be laid quite
justly against the governments of Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell.
The value of an honour depends very largely
on its antiquity, its associations, its rarity, and the sorts
of people who have already received it. The Order of the British
Empire is nearly a hundred years old, commemorates the high point
of Britain's history, is not readily awarded, and includes a long
list of truly outstanding men and women, with whom most would
regard it as a privilege to be associated. Perhaps for this reason,
much publicity was given recently, just prior to the announcement
of the present Committee's inquiry, to a claim by a certain individual
that he had been offered an OBE but had rejected it. It seems
that the individual in question, apparently a well known public
entertainer of presumably West Indian extraction, had a history
of declaiming against the OBE and against the former Empire, to
which he attributed a "thousand years of evil". While
few took him seriously, it was his obvious ignorance of history
and his insult of a highly regarded decoration that gave rise
to the publicity. If the offer of the OBE was genuine—and
it was not denied—the incident reflected, either, monumental
incompetence on somebody's part in offering him the award, or,
as many concluded at the time, the incident had been set up as
a ploy by Government in order justify an intention to abolish
the Order. In the light of several ill-considered assaults on
the constitution in recent years, such an explanation seemed,
in the minds of many members of the public, to fit a pattern.
The Wilson Review itself, for some reason, went
to the trouble of quoting a remark by another public entertainer,
"Dusty" Springfield, who had been awarded an OBE and
had asked her audience whether this was the award that was given
to cleaners. On the face of it, the remark was fatuous, but was
undoubtedly intended as a joke against herself, implying that
she was no better than a cleaner, and therefore scarcely worthy
of it. Even so, it was tasteless, and would have elicited little
more than a wry smile from my late uncle, who was awarded the
MBE for organising the movement of all troops and equipment by
rail for the D-Day invasion of Normandy. That the Wilson Review
should have gone to the trouble of quoting Springfield suggests
that it was scraping the barrel for evidence that the Order was
no longer of any value.
Nevertheless, a question is raised. The early
immigrants to Britain from the former non-white colonies in the
1950's were prompted in many cases by a desire to remain under
British rule, following the grant of colonial independence. While
many in the second and third generations have adapted and, where
earned, have gladly accepted British honours, there remain some
who, while having no memory of the Empire, have had great difficulty
in coming to terms with an essentially alien urban industrial
society, and who have responded by rejecting it and all that it
offers. This is unfortunate, but it is not surprising. One can
only comment on the issue by looking at it the other way round.
Thus, many Britons have recently chosen to live in France. If,
in their typically public-spirited British way, one or two had
won the gratitude of the French for some service or achievement,
and had been awarded the prestigious MN, or "Membership of
the Order of Napoleon" (assuming such existed), they could
either have accepted it in the spirit in which it had been given,
or they could have upset the French by announcing to the world
that they had rejected it, on the ground that British people did
not like Napoleon. They could even have insulted the French further
by suggesting that they abolish the honour out of deference to
themselves. There is a Latin saying to the effect that: "When
in Rome, do as the Romans do", and it is a good basic rule
to follow. Much strife and bloodshed has been caused over the
centuries by people who have ignored it.
It has been suggested, even so, that the OBE
be replaced by something altogether more bland, such as a rather
meaningless "Order of Britain", much like the "Order
of Australia". The present writer worked for many years in
the civil service in Australia, where Imperial honours were discontinued
in favour of the Order just mentioned. The change brought satisfaction
to national sentiment, but the contrast with the situation in
Rhodesia, where the writer also worked in the civil service for
many years, and where Imperial honours still applied (at least,
until 1965), was noticeable. In the latter case, the award of
honours such as the OBE and knighthoods for distinguished service
seemed almost to add an extra dimension to society, in that they
emphasised effort as worthy in itself, and not merely as a means
to making or earning money. In a country where public good usually
seemed to matter more than personal gain, the honours system was
an effective counterbalance to the rewards of materialism. While
necessarily few and far between, the honours were held in high
regard. A knighthood generally marked a man who had devoted his
life to a purpose that was worthy in its own right, whether it
had involved a leading role in the development, from almost nothing,
of a large mining industry on the Copperbelt, or whether it had
been, as in the case of one like Sir Ray Stockil, the opening
up of tens of thousands of acres of arid lowveld to irrigation
and productivity, and the resulting creation of new industries
which had not previously been thought feasible in the region.
If anybody in the Department, Authority, or other organisation
in which one worked was the holder of an OBE, it was known to
everybody.
On the other hand, few appeared to attach much
importance to the Order of Australia. The writer does not recollect
anybody in particular who had received it, beyond a suspicion
that the head of the Department under whom he served was a recipient.
Except for a minority of Australians, the decoration seemed to
be regarded with a detachment that bordered almost on indifference.
The title conveyed little, it was too new to have established
itself, and it was associated with few really notable names. This
is not intended as an adverse comment on the Order of Australia,
but rather as an underlining of the importance of tradition and
sense of significance in giving meaning to an honour. Certainly,
independent former colonies have had no real option but to forge
new honours of their own, but the loss to achievers in the meantime
has been considerable. The head of the Department under whom the
writer served for many years, who had achieved a great deal and
who was also the Vice-Chancellor of the University, was himself
a nationlist in sentiment who undoubtedly endorsed the new system
of Australian honours, but nothing could have replaced the knighthood
which he undoubtedly would have earned, and which alone would
have been a fitting tribute to all that he had done.
Question 13: Forms of Address
A member of the Privy Council is constitutionally
a direct adviser to the Head of State. The honorific "Right
Honourable' lets it be known that he holds an exceptional position.
John Smith is one person, but the Rt Hon. John Smith is seen as
somebody else entirely, and much the same is true of other titles
and forms of address. They are to be found in most civilized societies,
and their basic purpose is undoubtedly to reinforce public respect
for authority, and hence for the rule of law. Just as English
judges are referred to as "Mr Justice" So-and-So, American
judges are addressed as "Your Honour". American Parliamentarians
rejoice in the titles of "Senator" or "Representative".
A person holding an honoured position in the Arab world is addressed
as "sheikh", and so on. Such niceties also help to oil
the wheels of social life. It has only been in the Communist countries
that people have been reduced to a common herd, like cattle, with
all social distinctions erased. Even so, it was the norm for certain
individuals to walk around wearing bright decorations that proclaimed
them as "Heroes of the Soviet Union". Communist China
dispensed with all distinctions of rank in its armed forces, in
keeping with its political ideology, until it realised that it
was more important to win wars, and the distinctions reappeared
with redoubled emphasis. Eleven years of drab uniformity imposed
by Cromwell were enough to induce the English people to welcome
the return of a glittering society under Charles II with wild
enthusiasm. Americans, denied such things, display a keen interest
in the possibility of an English knighthood, or hope to find some
long lost family connection with the hereditary Peerage.
Question 14: A Single Category versus Different
Categories
It is not possible to equate different kinds
of achievement, because different circumstances and standards
apply. To try to equate valour on the battlefield with a discovery
in organo-chemistry is impracticable. Even equating the running
of youth clubs with personal service to the Queen requires a feat
of imagination. Different categories of honours get around this
difficulty. They also tell the world what general field of endeavour
a recipient was engaged in. An RVO means something totally different
from an MC.
Different grades of honour are also inevitable,
according to the degree of self-sacrifice involved, or whether
an achievement was merely notable or truly outstanding.
Question 15: Increasing the Diversity of Honours
Any nomination procedure that is designed to
obtrude political ideology into the honours process would be objectionable
and an abuse of the system. Honour should be awarded where it
is due, and to the extent that it is due, regardless of age, sex,
race, religion, or any other criterion that is not relevant. Because
achievement is not necessarily related to any of these criteria,
the introduction of the principle of social proportionality into
the awarding of honours would mean that, in order to assess the
worth of a particular award, one would need to know the sex, race,
etc. of the recipient. Likewise, modern degrees are rather meaningless,
unless one knows which Universities awarded them.
PUBLIC SERVANTS
AND HONOURS
Senior civil servants undoubtedly receive more
decorations than senior people in private enterprise, but the
following points should be borne in mind:
(a)
The Civil Service has always been poorly paid by
comparison, and, Chancellors of the Exchequer being as they are,
will undoubtedly continue to be. Honours are a partial compensation.
(b)
Civil servants, like Ministers, are employees of
the Queen, engaged in the carrying out of her policies. Just as
private employers are entitled to give awards to their employees,
it is also appropriate for the Queen to give recognition for the
service that she has received over the years.
Nevertheless, a distinction needs to be made,
to a greater extent than has been the case, between the service
and achievements normally expected of a particular office, and
service and achievements that exceed what is expected. A distinction
is therefore necessary between the simple recognition of long
and able service and the recognition of exceptional performance.
Question 18: The Link Between Status and the Class
of Honour
Not only should the award be appropriate to
the achievement, but the recipient should be appropriate to the
award. Certain awards, such as Peerages and knighthoods, have
been associated in the public mind with noble ancestry for over
a thousand years. Even in a democratic age, the public feel offended
when a knighthood, for example, is granted to a lout. While most
members of the public who are old enough to pass judgement would
willingly see deserving individuals honoured with an appropriate
title and a seat in the House of Lords, it is undopubtedly the
case that the majority consider the House of Lords to have been
debased in recent years, and its effectiveness as an institution
reduced, by the presence of individuals who jar with what is expected
of a lord of the realm. This is not to debar the Upper House to
ordinary people, but it does demand a higher standard of good
manners, personal integrity, dignified bearing and evident education
than is demanded for admission to the Commons, where the hurley-burley
of politics must be carried on.
TRANSPARENCY AND
INVOLVEMENT
The writer is not aware that the honours system
is an issue, beyond the increasing abuse of it in recent years.
It is not desirable that the selection process
should be open to public scrutiny. It would be exploited by the
media as a new form of public entertainment, promoting acrimonious
disagreement as to who should, and who should not, have received
the various awards. This, in turn, would debase the whole process
and cast a shadow over the recipients. Many deserving cases would
be likely to refuse nomination, rather than be exposed to publicity.
OVERSIGHT AND
GOVERNANCE
Abuse of the honours system stems chiefly from
the convention that allows the Prime Minister to submit many of
the recommendations, and the corresponding convention that the
Sovereign accepts his recommendations.
The most flagrant abuse has long been that over
the granting of Peerages, which has reduced the Upper House to
a political football. Latterly, however, political opportunism
has crept into other honours. Political popularity has been sought
by ensuring that honours are granted to almost anybody who enjoys
a popular following, such as footballers and "pop-stars".
Most of these are handsomely rewarded in any case, and honours
are sometimes tainted by some of the crude and tasteless entertainment
for which they are given.
In the past, a decent interval has been allowed
to elapse between "achievement" and honour. Recently,
a football team was publicly recommended for honours almost before
it had left the stadium, and within days its members had been
summoned to the Palace for the awards to be bestowed. Political
abuse of the nation's honours is objectionable enough, but when
it is so glaringly blatant it causes deep offence to the public
and resentment to all those recipients who have had to await their
turn.
As proposed earlier in connection with the House
of Lords, there should be no political involvement in the recommendation
of honours. The most appropriate body to oversee the process is
probably the Privy Council, less its Party members. This body
has the following advantages:
(a)
It has direct access to the Sovereign, and so is
in a position to submit its advice.
(b)
It is composed of persons who are generally above
reproach.
(c)
It is seen as non-political, yet carrying the weight
of authority.
(d)
It is in a position to delegate most of the actual
work of selection, while not losing control.
There is no need for Parliament to be involved
in the honours system, or to grant honours of its own. Parliament
is seen as the domain of the political Parties, and any awards
made by it would be exposed to the very partizanship that the
present system needs to be rescued from. The American Congress
awards honours because there is no institution under the American
system of government that is free of Party political influence.
3 Constitutionally, the Privy Council is, in effect,
a standing committee of the Lords. Back
|
