Memorandum by Frederick Rapsey (HON 79)
PREAMBLE
For the purpose of this paper, it is taken that
the philosophical discussion about the merits and otherwise of
having an honours system is sidestepped, and the premise is that
we should continue to have one.
Whilst it is true that learned societies and
universities confer fellowships and honorary degrees, lawyers
become QCs and private and public bodies award certificates of
appreciation, there is something about the medallic representation
of recognition that has a universal appeal. One has only to witness
the proliferation of unofficial medals over the last few years
(Appendix II), which people can buy and which benefit worthy charities,
such as the Royal British Legion. People purchasing these clearly
feel under-valued by the community because they have nothing to
demonstrate their accomplishments or to wear on the right occasion.
Sometimes they are galled because people in organizations that
have a straightforward medallic tradition can sport a chestful,
sometimes for doing no more than their job in a safe administrative
post. It would be a generous gesture to recognise some of these,
for example the "National Service Medal", which was
commissioned by the Royal British Legion and raises substantial
sums for it, relieving State expenditure. It also has strict criteria.
It is a little distasteful that there are so
many of these unofficial commemoratives, that could be obtained
by untruthfulness, to give the impression of remarkable service.
However, much has been raised for registered charities
There is a long tradition in this country of
awarding very few honours to as small a number of people as possible,
which gave rise to the above. It is gradually being undermined
by the plethora of, for example, UN and NATO awards, which are
richly deserved of course, and Mr. Major's opening out of the
honours system, developed by the present government. It is good
to see, for example, the Suez veterans' recognition but it is
regrettable that certain people have been honoured simply for
being famous (eg Jagger) and not for being role models or for
charitable works. (If Jagger, for example, was thought to be a
musician of note, no doubt he would have been awarded an honorary
music degree or fellowship of the Royal Academy of Music.)
There should be considerable embarrassment in
government at the award of the Legion of Honour to British Great
War Veterans without a reciprocal decoration of, say, the MBE
to French Veterans. This should be rectified as a matter of courtesy,
perhaps with an MBE (Military).
It has ever been the genius of our people to
manage change without causing too much surface disturbance. This
works, so it should not change. One notes that not even the present
Prime Minister has rejected the appellation Rt. Hon. nor tried
to redefine the prime ministerial role by dropping the "first
Lord of the Treasury" title, so although he is often cited
as a wrecker of tradition it cannot be true. It may be that some
politicians would like to scrap all recognition, from a Marxist
and also Christian viewpoint, in that everybody should work to
their best level, whatever it is, for the benefit of others. However
good this is in theory, it does not work in fact. Indeed, such
politicians should already have dropped the postnominals MP and
of any degree they have earned; a personal position. Any "republicans"
(out to subvert the constitution) should bow to the democratic
will of the people: was not the Sovereign elected by Parliament
for life at the beginning of her reign? This is directly relevant
to the Sovereign's position as Fount of Honour and If anything
this should be reinforced as a national focus and honours taken
from political direction and returned to the Head of State.
II
Answers to the 34 Questions
1. Yes. They are insufficient to reward
what is good in a nation of some 60 million people.
2. The hereditary peerage is a delightful
anachronism, in that, for example, Marquesses no longer control
the Marches and that Dukes are no longer leaders (Latin, dux).
clearly all hereditary peers must have the right to vote and stand
for the Lower House, and all residuary privileges expunged. The
present generation should however be granted use of the facilities
of the Upper House until death, but no successor should have this
as of birthright. There is no reason why a life peer (a baron)
should not be promoted in the peerage to become, for example,
a "life earl", as Prime Ministers are traditionally
offered this honour. Could not a "good baron" become
a viscount, as a reward? An hereditary earl, for example, outside
parliament, worthy of a "life peerage", could enter
(or re-enter) the Upper House as a "marquess for life",
retaining for his heirs the grade of earl. This would avoid the
illogicality of awarding an hereditary peer a "life peerage"—a
baronage . . . again. These are distant, mediaeval precedents,
as there were also Irish earls sitting as UK barons, in the other
direction!
A I regret the way the Upper House has been
treated, left in limbo, and believe that the Great Officers of
state (eg Duke of Norfolk), the Prince of Wales and a representative
of the Palace (I do not know which Office) should remain.
B The hereditary peerage and baronetage
to be left alone. It will wither in time; It would be discourteous
to abolish it.
C Hereditary peers who have given valuable
service should continue to receive writs to attend their house.
There is no need for them to be re-appointed as life peers.
D The Lords should be 25% chosen by a lottery
into which one would have to opt. After all, Jury Service is also
a well-established lottery, and if one is competent to review
evidence in court and help put people in prison, surely one could
review legislation.
E The remainder should be Life Peers. All
should be salaried. Working peers are, after all, Members of the
Parliament, and should have the post-nominal M.P. also.
F Life peerages should be of two types,
personal and institutional or representative.
G Personal peerages should include:
a. Former House of Commons M.P.s who
have served a defined term in the Lower House:
b. Appointees on personal merit—eg
actors, authors, soldiers, etc., appointed by an electoral college.
c. Palace nominees. Sometimes the monarch
will come across remarkable people outside the mainstream machine.
H Institutional peerages should include,
not as delegates
a. Representatives of religious bodies,
eg bishops, rabbis, etc.
b. Nominees of professions and trade
groups (eg BMA, RON, T&GWU).
c. Representatives of charitable bodies,
eg St. John Ambulance; National Trust; Scouts.
d. Representatives of a pensioners'
body.
e. Representatives of young peoples'
bodies.
g. Representative of any organization
that can muster a minimum membership (say) of 250,000 people.
I Also, "wild card" peerage, co-opted
by the Lords sitting as a Committee of the whole house.
J Age range 25-75; keep the ancient titles
and styles.
K Peerages to be regarded as "super
knighthoods", as now, and peers should undertake to attend
the Upper House in a properly professional and committed manner.
3. THE FRENCH
CASE AND
AUTOMATICITY
I understand that after a certain period of
time in a public service post an award is automatic, and that
with promotion in that service comes promotion in that category
of decoration. This extends to the lowliest positions. Recipients
to whom I have talked do not feel that automaticity cheapens this,
and in fact helps to create the wish to serve fully to qualify.
(example, Appendix I.)
In the U.K. various volunteer decorations are
awarded for continuous service of a specific number of years,
so the precedent is established. This also underpins the idea
of reward for unpaid service. The Cadet forces Medal is an example,
but if service is interrupted by reason of relocation, the service
is not cumulative. This should be rectified. There may be other
examples.
In the Civil Service, Diplomatic Service and
the Military, awards are automatic. In the Fire Service there
is, I understand, the principle of automaticity also, but I am
not certain. Whatever the case, it needs standardisation.
In the U.S.A. there is a decoration called the
"Purple Heart". This is awarded to any military person
who is wounded, or injured as a result of enemy action. Perhaps
we should adopt a similar principle. Indeed, in the Great War,
"wound stripes" were worn on the sleeves of such people,
so there is a precedent. One should also consider people in public
or private employment, who suffer physical hurt as a result of
their job. Is a miner, or a policeman, for example, as likely
to be hurt as a military person? Of course, in our unfortunate
"compensation culture", where the law is framed so that
it can be manipulated to extract money for almost any reason,
It might seem odd to award a "Civil Bravery Medal" to
someone in the middle of sueing somebody or even the crown. Also,
what of people suffering psychological damage? How is one to assess
the extent of this? The loss of a limb, for example, is visible.
Not so the crippling of a faculty.
It is vain to suppose that any reward system,
like any human endeavour, is perfect.
4. All these—but care must be taken
to avoid rewarding people who are simply rich and/or famous, for
being rich and famous! If they contribute in a reasonable way,
let them qualify for an honour by at the least a very large donation
to a charity.
5. It should attempt to do so.
6. Not generally, but this could be addressed
by a website and reference material in all libraries so that it
is at least accessible. Nomination documentation should be "downloadable".
7. Partly, unless one adopts, in parallel,
the principle of automaticity as in some government service.
8. They should have an enhanced power to
recommend, over and above the Major reforms. The criteria should
be so drawn that they can be flexible enough to be reinterpreted
as time goes on. Continual navel-gazing is a waste of energy.
9. Yes.
10. If there was a specific category for
those who volunteer, with the precedent being those decorations
awarded to the T.A. among others, this overrides the question.
See 12 below.
HONOURS AND
SOCIAL DIVISIONS
No doubt the critics quoted are upset because
they feel they are not in an appropriate grade! An additional
description of the O.B.E. was often quoted by my late father as
"Other Buggers" Efforts", when work done by a person
was presented by his supervisor as that supervisor's work. As
to the titles used, I suggest that the whole Commonwealth (some
20% of the world) uses them; the late Sir Paul Getty changed his
nationality in order to use his Hon. K.B.E. title. There are plenty
of other titles around the world: should we not rejoice in our
cultural identity rather than being upset by it? "I understand
that the ethnic minority population in the U.K. is some 5%, SO
that is about right. Of course the word "Empire" is
anachronistic. (see 12 below).
The Honours Committee of 58 members should reflect
the composition of the country as a whole. 50% men and women;
5% (2) from ethnic minorities; the correct percentage of English,
Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish, etc. Care must be taken to avoid
a racist imbalance. Each member should be allowed to put forward
one name each year which proceeds to an honour, without contest.
11. By 75% of recommendations coming from
the public. Avoid quotas, recognise individual merit only.
12. The Order of the British Empire was
instituted in the Great War, and is now the catch-all for anything.
Sadly the time has passed for substituting "Commonwealth".
I suggest that it should be purely for voluntary work, with the
creation of a parallel facet: the Order of British Excellence,
with an alternative, non-christian design as an option. Candidates
could therefore opt for one of the three -
c. non-religious design, a version
of b.
This practice was commonplace in Imperial Russia,
for example. People offered membership in the Order of St. Stanislas
(stolen from Poland) could have a Christian design or a neutral
one. It would be important for continuity (and economy) to keep
the same post-nominals, also to avoid effectively denigrating
the current holders. The b. insignia could have the central design
replaced by the Royal Cypher and c. could be a map of the U.K.,
to avoid religious sensibilities, as a cross is anathema to Muslims
and a picture of a person to Jews, I understand. Keep titles—they
are part of our cultural heritage and under the various p.c. laws
now in place it is illegal and racist to attack cultural identity!
No more acronyms please!
12a. This scheme leaves out the "MBE
for the sub-postmaster" sort of award, that level awarded
to, say, Olympic gold athletes for merit or faithfulness at their
chosen profession or trade, successful authors, clergy folk and
so on, who have exceeded the requirements of their jobs or set
good examples. I suggest that they receive the MVO, which better
strengthens the loyalty link between Crown and people, and that
the Sovereign awards personally the LVO and upwards, as now. If
a person's prominence leans towards the suggested M and G sector,
eg teacher, but in an independent school rather than his or her
colleague in a public sector school, then the LMG might be more
appropriate.
Criteria can be drawn up by those better to
do it and with more time than I.
13. Yes; why not? It could be extended beyond
cabinet ministers.
14. The former Soviet Union tried it, and
failed.
15. Women 50% of course; ethnic minority
to reflect percentage of them as per census. Now some 5%, but
subject to change. Do not lump all non-ethnic British into one
category — they are very diverse; West Indians are not Hong
Kong Chinese!
16. Motivating, but also increasing time-serving
and "jobsworthing". If a motive for early retirement
for efficiency is a gong, be practical!
17. No. All the servants of the people should
have equal opportunities, but it is reasonable that tradition
should be followed by categorization (see 22). There are also
those that serve and do a good job who are not in receipt of a
state salary, and they too should be equally recognised.
18. Doubtful—but the armed forces
are leading the way, with Officers' decorations now open to all.
19. Of course, so take it out of their hands,
but an "independent" Honours Commission would continue
to rely on Civil Service recommendations and be subject to pressure.
This is an argument for automaticity.
20. Make it a department of the Royal Household,
nominated half by them, half by HMG perhaps. This would restore
the link between the Throne as de facto Fount of Honour rather
than the present de jure situation for most honours. Unrealistic
to ban committee members from receiving honours; give them a standard
decoration on retirement from it. LMG?
21. Give people the choice!
22. No—creatively extend them, thus:
a. "B.E."—develop as
in para. 12 above.
b. Leave the Garter, Thistle, ON and
RVO with the Sovereign, mostly (q.v.)
c. The Bath to be exclusively military,
with 5 divsions—GCB, KCB, KB (revived grade), CB, LB (Lieutenant).
d. The M and G to be Civil Service,
Diplomats and all public sector employees—5 divisions—GCMG,
KCMG, KMG, CMG, LMG.]
e. Knights Bachelor and CH to remain,
but create more knights bachelor.
f. foreign Orders. Until the 19th century,
all were recognised without question; a knight was a knight, from
whatever source. It would be civilised to repeal this discourteous
legislation. Indeed, these days it might be regarded as illegal
and discriminatory to refuse to recognise foreign decorations
awarded to British people in good faith, including by the Vatican
and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
g. Members of the Venerable Order of
St. John of Jerusalem should be recognised and use their titles
of "Sir" and "Dame". They are after all members
of a chartered and royal order of chivalry, who have to pay annual
oblations to a purpose, unlike members of other Orders, to my
knowledge.
h. If f. and g. above were not acceptable,
then the style "The Chevalier" and "The Dame"
should become official usages, as a compromise.
i. Foreign House Orders, issued
by non-reigning royal houses should be recognised by the sovereign
and permitted to be worn on her uniforms. HM forces after all
take an oath of loyalty to the Sovereign, not to any transitory
government.
j. Chivalric Orders. The senior
among these is the Military and Hospitaller Order of St. Lazarus
of Jerusalem, voided from England in the 1540s but never abolished
in Scotland (Lord Lyon King of Arms confirms). This continued
under the protection of the French monarchy and now under the
Melchite Patriarch of Jerusalem. It dates (like the Order of St.
John and SMOM) from the Crusades. It should be recognised and
its ribbons permitted on uniforms.
k. Many "chivalric orders"
are no more than associations of romantics and the deluded and
should continue to have no standing, unless they grow to deserve
the Sovereign's recognition. Such recognition should not involve
government.
23 A little, but it will survive, just as
the sale of honours by a connection of the Lloyd George government
has been largely forgotten. That was far worse. I suggest that
it has lost far more by making inappropriate people into knights,
eg Jagger, the popular musician.
24. Yes.
25. Set up a website and publicise it.
26. Ditto.
27. Make it 75% public, 25% official. After
all, only 20% of the workforce work for the government.
28. The disadvantage of an all-nominations-by-the-public
system is that it would fall to recognise the quiet, dedicated
person who is not pushy and who deserved recognition for service.
It would be against automaticity which should be extended from
the public service to all.
29. Yes, yes.
30. Yes, but if nominations are kept secret
by definition (as it should be at present) it should be all right.
Timid recommendations could be covered by insisting on a more
rigorous recommendation procedure.
31. Awards to people for services to their
political party is an embedded abuse, so long-standing that it
is really a tradition! There are populist honours to (apparently)
buy popularity from the voters and indigestible elevations to
the House of Lords for friends of those in power. for one with
a reputation as a wrecker of tradition it is interesting to see
a current prime minister reverting to a classically mediaeval
system of patronage.
32. By recommending honours on an individual
basis, as part of a Vote of Thanks.
33. This is their version of the Victoria
Cross. We do not need anything "similar"; we already
have it.
34. It would be extremely dangerous to have
a "distributional pattern set by the government of the day".
It smacks of political honours and that, for example, only a certain
number of people can be brave, clever, etc. at any one time. The
discredited idea of the "normal curve" is behind this
one. This is the system in national school examinations when only
a certain percentage of pupils score As, Bs and so on, without
any regard to marks scored.
By all means check processes.
III FURTHER THOUGHTS
A Long Service Awards
The LSGC medal is awarded to non-commissioned
folk. It should be extended to officers, in the same way that
officers' decorations (MC, etc.) are now awarded to all ranks.
Is there any reason why people in public or
private service should not receive long service awards for faithfulness?
On the other hand, people are more mobile and can often change
careers, and some careers can face more challenges to health than
others. Should people be recognised for simply serving and surviving
for a full working life, 18-65, without having to depend on the
State for a benefit? Should there be a criterion of say a £100,000
donation to a charity or the equivalent amount of free time expended,
calculated in hours for an MBE, for example? How do you equate
a lawyer's time at say £150 per hour with an Oxfam shop worker
who gives more time but at a lower level? Should it be purely
time-based? Should we further encourage charitable giving (both
because it is good for the soul and decreases government funding)
by having a 10% levy on all National Lottery winnings, to be paid
to a registered charity of the winners' choice? Donations of £100,000
or more earn a "thank you" in the form of an MBE! It
is widely suspected that many political nominees are "honoured"—so
let us have something really worthwhile.
B Equivalence
In academe, the ranking of degrees is well-established,
like the grading of membership of Orders of Knighthood. There
is, however, no reference document detailing other equivalents.
Perhaps such is not necessary, but it would be useful to be able
to compare. for example, a senior scouter is awarded the Wood
Badge, worn with pride on scout uniforms. It is not recognised
elsewhere, yet a worker in another charity might receive an MBE,
a national honour, for an equivalent amount of input. Holders
of such as the Wood Badge should be able to wear it on occasions
when medals are worn, perhaps as an official silver miniature,
or should there be an official recognition and a level 5 award
qualified for?
C Wales
The Principality is the only part of the U.K.
without a specific honour. Ireland has the Order of St. Patrick,
not now awarded since 1922 (I believe) but still theoretically
in being. I suggest an Order of St. David, to have the same status
as the Order of the Thistle.
D Refusers
It should be regarded not only as bad manners
but undemocratic to publicise the fact that one has refused an
honour offered by the elected representatives of the people. It
is a form of snobbery that degrades the refusers and sneers at
the accepters. The seal of community approval is surely only rejected
by people who reject their community. The civilised acceptance
of a community accolade (with suitable seemly embarrassed reluctance)
should be the mark of good manners. To publicly reject is no more
than attention-seeking. Such people should be placed on a list
of those never to be offered anything again, unless they publicly
apologise and retract their rejection.
E Patronage
Reform, by reducing dramatically the amount
of patronage enjoyed by politicians and require them to submit
suggestions to a Commission under the protection of the Throne.
This would restore the Throne to its present theoretical position
as the Fount of Honour. This is of course unlikely as no politician
ever withdrew from any level of power once achieved. It would,
however, develop their quality of humility, which servants of
the people should display.
F A Commonwealth Medal
The modern Commonwealth is very different from
the Club of the Old Dominions. There are so many worthwhile projects
going on and many people who deserve recognition, for whom the
"Order of the British Empire" is inappropriate, yet
it is currently the only one on offer! I suggest a Commonwealth
Medal. The ribbon should be common to all countries but the medal
itself should be of a national design. It should be awarded to
anybody in the Commonwealth who has demonstrated a commitment
to the Commonwealth idea, and of course pan-Commonwealth criteria
would need to be drawn up, phrased as generously as possible.
The 54 (53) countries would have freedom to award it as they thought
fit to any of their nationals. It would also be appropriate as
a reward for Commonwealth peace-keepers but it could not be awarded
for military action.
Bars could be awarded for specific further activities,
but no further grades ever established. It should be frequently
awarded.
G Jubilee Medals
The widely-acknowledged scandal of the pancity
of distribution of the 1977 Silver Jubilee Medal has to some extent
been rectified by the more equitable system for the 2002 Golden
Jubilee Medal. However, the dated criterion of 5 year's service
in certain organizations was patently unfair. If it had been five
year's service during HM's reign, it would have been more equitable.
Of course, whatever decision that was made would be regarded as
unfair by somebody!
The Diamond Jubilee, 2012
Perhaps the qualification for this could be
drawn with some greater generosity, subtlety and intelligence,
for example, it should be available to anyone who has served the
community in a voluntary capacity for ten years and to all in
state services since 1952. furthermore, if anybody at all wanted
to demonstrate loyalty to the Throne and the community, they could
become Donats (as in the Order of St. John and SMOM) by contributing
a sum of money to a registered charity, a receipt for which could
serve as qualification. There would be no question of purchasing
an honour because the ribbon of the Donat's medal would be different.
People could also be recommended, as at present.
The Order of St. John
In accordance with precedent, the Order thought
to devise a Jubilee Medal for members. This was stopped by "Government".
It is very sad that some politician wanted to bar this harmless
and loyal gesture, and it is not clear to me how this was done
legitimately. Presumably it was decreed that too much loyalty
expressed to the Throne detracted from adherence to the government.
An overtly loyal government, however, gains more support than
it loses.
H The Cross in Orders—a cultural
obstacle?
To assist non-Christians (and indeed anti-Christians)
with the effective reception of an award containing this emblem,
perhaps a crescent and Star of David could be incorporated into
the designs and support obtained from "the Chief Imam"
and Chief Rabbi? One has to bear in mind that the phrase multi-cultural
means 5% of non-ethnic British origin and 95% native. The last
census confirms this and that 72% believe in a Supreme Being,
so one need not over-react to noisy "politically correct"
people who are not democratically proportionate.
|
