Memorandum by the Imperial Society of
Knights Bachelor (HON 76)
The Society will not attempt to suggest a wholesale
review of the Honours System as it does not believe that that
is called for. Plainly, as with any other system, it is capable
of improvement. The Society will offer its thoughts in that direction
in answering the questions posed by PASC.
Q1. Does the United Kingdom need an honours
system at all? Do we need as many honours as we have now (3,000
per year)? Could we make do with say 10 or 100 new honours each
year?
A. The honours system plays a significant
part in the life of this country in recognising merit and achievement
in a great many fields. It is wholly appropriate for a monarchy
where the monarch is the fount of all honour. We need it and should
retain it just as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have retained
it.
The actual number should be defined by the rigorous
application of the criteria for their award, which itself should
deflect criticism. To have a specific number whether as a maximum,
as a minimum or as a target must call into question whether the
criteria have been properly applied. It would be an opportunity
lost to honour quite widely if limits of 10 or 100 were adopted.
Inevitably such a small number would concentrate criticism on
them for their choice and for the omission of others. Those who
have been honoured frequently come to head charitable organisations
and to attract charitable giving and volunteers and so continue
to give back to the community.
Q2. What should be done about the peerage
in light of, among other developments, the present proposals to
remove all hereditary peers from the House of Lords?
A. We disagreed with the removal of hereditary
peers in the first place and feel that the Government has handled
the reform of the House of Lords very badly by failing to have
a complete proposal for reform, which could be considered properly.
It is not too late to leave the rump of hereditary peers in place
with their own elected replacement arrangements. (The present
decision to delay the removal of the rump of hereditary peers
should be taken advantage of and they should remain carrying out
their task, with life peers, in their role of revising legislation).
Whether or not that is done, the appointment of life peers should
continue but not with a view to making the government's task easier
but rather to strengthen the revising quality of that house. There
is a strong case for strengthening the ranks of cross bench peers
to that end.
Q3. In relation to the machinery of the
honours system, what lessons may be learned from the experience
of other countries?
A. We do not have detailed knowledge of
the honours systems of other countries and the machinery which
operates them. The committee will, no doubt, consider learning
something from their orders, perhaps particularly those of Canada,
Australia and New Zealand.
Q4. If there is to be a future for the
honours system, which should its main function be-to recognise
distinction in particular fields, to reward service, to pay tribute
to those who best represent the nation's values or something else?
A. It should recognise extraordinary achievement
in particular fields and reward exceptional service in public
life, voluntary work or charitable activity. If a criticism can
be made of the present system it is that at times the achievement
or service, whilst substantial, falls short of being of those
qualities. It is widely perceived that with the civil service
honours occur with an inevitability of the achievement of certain
ranks or periods in those ranks. That has given rise to the expression
that those honours "come up with the rations". It also
appears that on occasions governments arrange honours not so much
for those who deserve them but because the government is "playing
to the gallery" of prospective electors.
Q5. Can any honours system realistically
reflect all of the above?
A. Whilst no system can be perfect and any
system, however well operated, will give rise to some criticism,
particularly in these over-critical days, it is clearly possible
to devise a system to do what is needed and to have published
criteria. Indeed the present system does well and the criticisms
are pretty mild viewed in the round.
Q6. Are the criteria for awards well
enough known and properly understood?
A. The explanatory note that accompanies
the recommendation form could be more explicit. Criteria, if properly
set out and published, should deal with this.
Q7. Is the award of honours bound to
be subjective—"an art rather than a science" as
the Wilson Review puts it?
A. Subjectivity cannot be eliminated in
human assessment but it can be minimised if objectivity is maximised
by applying properly defined criteria.
Q8. What role should be played by the
honours system by peer groups, professional, business and trade
union bodies and academic institutions? Should they be asked to
provide, monitor and keep up to date the criteria used in recommending
candidates for honours?
A. The criteria used for recommending candidates
for honours should be centrally selected to ensure the extraordinary/exceptional
requirement is uniform. Inevitably some input will be required
from such bodies in consultation to arrive at the criteria. They
should be able to put forward candidates and may be consulted
in connection with recommendations made from outside for members
of their body but the responsibility must remain with the honours
committee.
Q9. Would there be any advantage in applying
to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in
appointment to public bodies?
A. No, this would not be appropriate. Consideration
for public appointments appears to require balance between racial
or other groups which may not necessarily be based on merit in
an objective sense. Honours should be awarded where the criteria
are fulfilled regardless of the "balance" that produces.
Q10. What would the advantages and disadvantages
of restricting honours to those who do voluntary work, either
full-time or part-time?
A. This would answer the wide-spread cynicism
about civil service awards but it would also sell short the value
of the system by failing to recognise so many other worthy recipients
for example our finest scientists, artists, inventors, wealth
creators and professionals of all kinds.
Q11. The Wilson Review proposes that
"in the interests of equity there should be equal access
to honours for all UK citizens". How could this best be achieved?
A. This question appears, from the paper's
introduction to this section of questions, to be aimed at the
question of whether particular awards should be appropriate for
particular social divisions. The answer is that all awards should
be available for all people regardless of social division. The
test should be which award fits the extraordinary or exceptional
quality of the individual's achievement or service or, in the
case of very senior appointments eg High Court Judges, Senior
Ambassadors, the importance of their appointment. We remark especially
that our own rank of Knight Bachelor has been awarded across social
divisions to the benefit of our diversity.
Q12. Are the title and the concept of
an "Order of The British Empire" now outdated, as the
Wilson Review suggests? If this is the case what should replace
the old Order the Order of Britain, the Order of the United Kingdom
or some other name? Should titles such as "Dame" and
"Sir", "Lady", "Baron" etc be abolished?
A. Whilst we no longer have an Empire we
still have a Commonwealth. There is an argument for changing the
name of the Order but is there a need to do so? Should the fact
that the name is outmoded necessarily call for change? Rightly,
in our view, the consultation paper does not ask this question
of the Orders of the Garter, Thistle and Bath. They, like their
institution, are ancient and traditional and should not be swept
away on the pretext of modernity. (We accept that our own Society's
prefix "Imperial" is outmoded but honourable and we
intend to retain it).
If there must be change the Order of the United
Kingdom would suggest itself to encompass the whole Kingdom. An
alternative would be the "Order of Great Britain" to
reflect and cover England, Scotland and Wales if a separate division
was provided for Northern Ireland.
Titles are a part of our heritage and those
instanced should be retained. They have a long and honourable
history which should not be removed so as to attain some lowest
common denominator with any other system.
Q13. Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors
should continue to be given the pre-fix "Right Honourable"?
A. What indication is there that the prefix
has become inappropriate? If change is felt necessary it may be
felt that the post-nominal PC is sufficient.
Q14. Some countries have considered creating
single categories of honours, with no divisions into classes or
ranks. Would this be a helpful move, or is it inevitable that,
to reflect different levels of achievement and contribution, various
levels of honour are required?
A. A total and unnecessary overhaul of the
honours system could create separate honours, rather than separate
levels of honour within the same Order, but the different levels
of honour would still be necessary as, for example, the Order
of Australia and The New Zealand Order of Merit have found. Appropriate
levels are needed to reflect different levels of achievement and
service. So it would be unhelpful and an unnecessary meddling
with something that works. There are, of course, honours such
as our Knight Bachelor which does not have levels. The whole process
depends on what the honour is for and its, rather than its recipient's,
rank.
Q15. What changes might be made to the
nominations process to improve the diversity of honours? For instance,
should there be an increase in the proportion of women and minority
ethnic people on the Honours Committees?
A. The importance of the make-up of Honours
Committees rests not in their ethnicity, gender or orientation
but in their ability, without applying prejudice, objectively
to recognise those of any of the foregoing as proper recipients
of honours, according to the laid-down criteria. Committees need
to be widely-based and capable of preventing any undue influence
by any of their number. Those committees must be provided with
suitable possible candidates who meet the criteria. It is easy
to see the superficial attraction for "the establishment"
to be able to point to a polyglot, polyracial, polyoriented series
of Honours Committees as providing diversity justification but,
unless they are individually the best people for the job making
decisions that are manifestly supportable they will fail.
It is noted from the introductory words in the
consultative paper, under the heading "The Honours Machinery",
that the present committees listed do not include committees for
eg the legal or teaching fields.
Q16. What are the effects, if any, of
the honours system on public administration in the UK? Is it a
motivating or a de-motivating force?
A. We have no direct experience. It might
be imagined that as an honour becomes "due" a civil
servant might be less effective in the performance of his duty
and more careful. To be passed over when a civil servant thought
an honour was due might cause distraction and less than effective
performance.
Q17. Is it fair that civil servants,
diplomats and those in the armed forces have a much better chance
of getting an honour than other people?
A. No, it is not fair. Worse it brings the
honours system into disrepute. These public servants, who play
an important part in the life of this country, are generally well-paid
and more than well-pensioned and so do not need a disproportionate
number of honours. (The latest suggestion that their jobs for
life may be under threat does not affect our view as, were it
to happen, that will only bring them into the reality of the mainstream
of the workforce). It is the apparent inevitability of honours
and the number of them that troubles the public. In many cases
recipients are seen to progress up the levels of an Order whilst
the most "ordinary" people of all sorts and conditions
get, if they are lucky, one opportunity for an honour. That said,
of course, civil servants should be recognised but for the same
qualities as those non civil servant recipients of awards for
exceptional and extraordinary service or achievements. Not disproportionately
save as to their having, from time to time, more candidates who
satisfy the criteria.
It is right that very senior ambassadors, permanent
secretaries and very senior service officers should be honoured
appropriately as are High Court Judges because their attainment
of those ranks merits it.
Q18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social/employment status and the class
of honour received?
A. To an extent it must be possible, subject
to the requirements of an Order or its change. If the criteria
for each level are clearly non-status related but achievement/service
related it can be done. If this cannot be achieved, the link must
be accepted as a reality rather than deny those deserving of the
appropriate honour.
Q19. Is there an inevitable conflict
of interest when civil servants are the main judges in assessing
whether other civil servants receive honours?
A. Almost certainly. Without any doubt that
is the perception of the public. Fewer honours approved by a non
civil servant committee working to the standard criteria would
go a long way to appease the public and maintain fairness to civil
servants.
Q20. Should there be an increase in the
number of independent outsiders who sit on the honours committees?
Should the committees be made 100% independent, perhaps by banning
all members from ever receiving an honour?
A. The make-up of the committees depends
not so much where they come from but on their quality, independence
of mind and freedom from susceptibility to outside, or worse inside,
influence. The committees must be balanced as to whence they have
come, again so as to ensure fairness and objectivity in applying
the criteria. Given our view regarding the awards to civil servants
100% independence might be a recipe for inconsistency. To ban
all members from ever receiving an honour might be to deny the
system useful committee members. Why not use largely those who
have been honoured already and other independents with a mix of
civil servants to maintain a consistent approach?
Q21. Should people who serve the state
and the public well in paid employment be recognised by higher
pay rather than the award of honours?
A. No, let them be honoured as above but
not to excess or perceived excess. Pay is a separate issue.
Q22. Would it be sensible, as the Wilson
Review proposes, to cut down the number of orders so that state
servants have to compete on similar terms with everyone else?
A. It is not so much a matter of cutting
down the number of orders as the number of awards. There is no
objection to an order for a specific occupation of recipients
but more than one per occupation may be thought excessive. It
is the numbers that cause the trouble if they are out of proportion
with the number of honours of the rest of possible recipients.
Q23. Has respect for the honours system
been diminished by recent disclosures about its operation?
A. Deplorable though the leaking of information
was, the respect for the system has not been diminished in the
eyes of the general public. There will always be elements of the
media looking to cause trouble. The start point for the recent
disclosures seems to have been an unwise choice of recipient,
who was not willing to "play by the rules". His track
record might well have indicated that possibility. One asks whether
the selection process was sufficiently robust and paid attention
to the criteria rather than political correctness.
Q24. In 2000 the Wilson Review paper
on transparency concluded "the honours system is not a live
issue at the moment. Nor is there much evidence of public dissatisfaction
with the system". Is this judgement still accurate?
A. Largely yes. Providing more careful selection
takes place, "the civil service issue" is dealt with
and political window-dressing is eschewed further leaks and adverse
publicity should be largely avoided and media interest should
subside. The public are unlikely to be dissatisfied if they are
largely content with those chosen to be honoured in two lists
a year.
Q25. Is the general public aware of the
honours system and the part they could play in it through nominations?
A. Probably more so than it was. Perhaps
more could be done to encourage nominations but that encouragement
should be tempered with some broad understanding of the criteria
applied.
Q26. How should awareness of the system
be raised?
A. By public advertisement drawing attention
to the application process and perhaps publishing the closing
dates for a particular list. Also by simplifying the process.
Q27. What is your view of the present
system by which roughly half of all honours are nominated directly
by the public, with the rest being generated by the departments?
A. If our points are taken on the civil
service awards that proportion seems about right but any suggestion
that a 50/50 divide is a norm, without strict adherence to merit
according to the criteria, would not be acceptable.
Q28. Should there be a higher proportion
of public nominations, or should the system be fundamentally changed
so that all honours are awarded as a result of such nominations?
What might be the disadvantage of such an "all-nominations"
system?
A. Organisations need to be encouraged to
submit nominations, as do members of the general public but recommendations
from government departments will still be required. The system
does not cry out for such wholesale change as this question suggests,
the disadvantage of an "all-nominations" system would
be the loss of deserving candidates.
Q29. In the light of the full implementation
in 2005 of the Freedom of Information Act, should there be more
openness about the process by which recommendations for honours
are produced? Should full citations be published?
A. Yes. For consideration also might be
the availability of information to those putting a candidate forward
where that candidate is not honoured.
Q30. Is there a danger that more openness
will lead to personal embarrassment or a series of timid recommendations?
A. If that openness and disclosure is sensitively
and uniformly handled, the risk of personal embarrassment can
be minimised. We suggest that careful thought be given, before
this policy is put into effect, to the nature, limits and method
of disclosure.
Q31. Is there evidence of political abuse
of the honours system? If there is abuse, what mechanism might
be put in place to reduce it?
A. We have no actual evidence of political
abuse but certainly there is a very strong perception of it. By
far the worst aspect of this is the honouring of those who make
donations to political parties, particularly when that party is
in power. The most attractive remedy would be to bar such people
from honours. The defect in the operation of the system is the
Prime Minister's final say (and who actually represents the Prime
Minister in carrying out that duty). This allows further cause
of suspicion and allows bias in favour of his party and against
other parties. The remedy would be to give the final say, after
the Prime Minister's observations on the final draft list, to
a very highly respected and proven final honours committee.
Q32. What role, if any, should Parliament,
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales play
in the honours system?
A. None. Like other bodies, they should
be able to make recommendations with a clear understanding that
theirs did not, of themselves, carry any more certainty of success
than any others, each would be tested against the criteria. It
may well be felt that up to now those hailing from Scotland and
Wales have done particularly well in relation to the rest of the
country.
Q33. The United States Congress awards
a Medal of Honor. Could Parliament do something similar?
A. Clearly it could but, were that to be
available, it should be in addition to the honours system and
not as a replacement. It should, if instituted, be sparingly given
and to those of very substantial merit rather than to faithful
party stalwarts.
Q34. The Wilson Review (in its paper
on Oversight, paragraph 72) suggested a wider independent role
for the Honours Scrutiny Committee in "conducting periodic
checks into the processes by which candidates' names are generated,
assessed and ranked and how closely the lists reflect the distributional
pattern set by the government of the day. Would such an expansion
of the Committee's role be helpful?
A. Yes and take on the role envisaged in
our answer to Q31. The very fact of "Distributional pattern
set by the government of the day" gives rise to further concerns
of "window dressing" to seek public approbation for
the geographical acceptability of a list. Unless honours are given
strictly in accordance with criteria and on merit, the honours
system will attract real and deserved criticism. Applying those
criteria properly may well seem to give a "geographical twist"
to a list but if it represents the reality of those deserving
awards so be it, an honest and factual answer is available.
Sir Richard Gaskell
Knight Principal
March 2004
| 
