Memorandum by Dr J C Horton (HON 80)
QUESTIONS
1. Does the United Kingdom need an honours
system at all? Do we need as many honours as we have now (3000
per year)? Could we make do with, say, 10 or 100 new honours each
year?
Yes, the country does need an honours
system. Although there are numerous other awards (as noted above),
these are very vulnerable to the latest whims in fashion and re-branding.
While many people may say they know little about the Order of
the British Empire, few will claim that they have never heard
of the letters "M.B.E". I doubt the same can be said
of the "Prison Officer of the Year" award. That honours
emanate from the Crown guarantees them the august status necessary
for any honours system if it is to have any standing throughout
the entire country.
The number of appointments should not be reduced;
indeed, I believe the number should be increased substantially.
I understand that the French Légion d'Honneur is
awarded to those who have served the State for 20 years or worked
elsewhere for 25 years. Similarly, I would like to see everyone
in this country appointed to, at least, the lowest rank in an
appropriate order of chivalry by the age of 50 (say). For this
purpose, a number of new orders should be founded. At present,
there must be many people in this country who have never met even
an M.B.E. However, it wasn't so long ago that universities were
equally distant. Now, however, most people will have encountered
someone who holds a university degree; many will have a graduate
in their own families. This degree of familiarity should be sought
for orders of chivalry.
2. 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?
In the light of the above proposal, there can
hardly be any objection to the full creation of hereditary peerages
once again (ie ennoblement of commoners and promotion within the
peerage for those who are already peers). Though we commemorate
notable persons in our country with buildings named after them,
statues of them and such like, the most intimate commemoration
is surely that their senior descendants be known by some unchanging
title down the generations.
There is still great respect for the family
in our country—something that has been deepened in recent
generations with the influx of immigrants from countries where
this respect is even stronger. Hereditary peerages are a manifestation
of this respect and they should be created again as they were
in former years.
3. In relation to the machinery of the
honours system, what lessons may be learned from the experience
of other countries?
Few . . . though from America, where honours
are far more restricted than in Europe, I suggest we note how,
in the absence of an official system, all sorts of bogus orders
appear. Some suggest that people in our country know little about
orders of chivalry. Nevertheless, I suggest that the existence
of our own (genuine) orders does much to protect people from being
taken in by bogus ones.
4. If there is to be a future for the
honours system, what 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?
All of these—no one function should be
defined to dominate over the others. All should be seen as differing
aspects of what makes people suitable for appointment to an order
of chivalry.
5. Can any honours system realistically
reflect all of the above?
Yes—if the good will of all can be secured.
(At present, certain elements in our society seem intent on undermining
the system by trying to belittle it on the most trivial counts—see
my reference to Imperial College below.)
6. Are the criteria for awards well enough
known and properly understood?
Totally, no; but "well enough", yes.
7. Is the award of honours bound to be
subjective-"an art rather than a science" as the Wilson
Review puts it?
Probably—but I prefer it to be subjective.
To apply totally rigid formulae to awards is bound to omit (especially
in the Order of the British Empire) those who deserve recognition
but don't fall within any group included in the formulae. All
should have the opportunity of being considered individually where
appropriate.
8. What role should be played in 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?
They should be encouraged in this. However,
nothing that they do in this area should prevent anyone falling
within their remits from receiving an honour through other routes
ie these groups should not be allowed to operate a veto.
9. Would there be any advantage in applying
to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in
appointments to public bodies?
No. Merit takes different—even individual—forms.
All cases should be considered (and I intend no pun) on their
own merits where necessary.
10. What would be the advantages and
disadvantages of restricting honours to those who do voluntary
work, either full-time or part-time?
Restricting honours to those carrying out voluntary
work would be very much a retrograde step in my opinion. With
more pressure on people to work longer hours, many people simply
don't have time to undertake "voluntary work" (ie unpaid
work). One might even argue that for them, their "voluntary
work"—an awful euphemism, I always feel—is a
part (or extension) of their paid work. But what virtue is there
in unpaid work in any case? As a cynic once put it, "Voluntary
work is merely the measure of a man's private income".
Some critics have attacked the honours system
for allegedly exacerbating a number of social divisions, partly
because it is divided into five levels.
An honours system can have little effect on
social divisions (in either direction) in any country where there
is any hereditary wealth. Which is the bigger social divider—being
a Commander of the Order of the British Empire instead of an Officer
or inheriting several hundred thousand pounds? The latter is certainly
not uncommon nowadays. This criticism of the honours systems seems,
to me, to be another example of it being attacked on the most
trivial of grounds.
The Wilson Review recalls the memorable remark
from the late singer Dusty Springfield after being told she was
to be given an OBE: "Isn't that what they give to cleaners?".
The remark may be memorable but only for its
ignorance. It is utterly inaccurate if it was meant to be a general
statement. No doubt someone can show that over the last eighty-odd
years one or more cleaners have been appointed an O.B.E. Was the
speaker objecting to those sporadic appointments then? If so,
more shame on her for objecting to being in their company.
Titles are also the subject of some controversy.
According to the Wilson Review, Britain appears to be the only
country in the world where the titles "Sir" and "Dame"
are used.
What controversy? "Sir" and "Dame"
are used in those countries where the Crown still makes such appointments.
One hardly expects them to appear in other countries ... just
as our country does not follow all practices characteristic of
others. However, there are ranks in other countries that are analogous
to "Sir" and "Dame". This is particularly
the case in the Far East.
One might as well pointedly note that the U.K.
is the only country in the world with a capital city called London.
Such being the case neither invalidates the concept of capital
cities in general nor the particular decision that ours be London.
11. The Wilson Review proposes that "in
the interests of equity there should be equal access to honours
for all UK citizens". How could this be best achieved?
I believe that "equal access to honours"
is already with us. I therefore refute the leading question at
the end of the above. See my answer to Question 15 for further
comments on this.
12. 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", "Lord", "Lady", "Baron"
etc be abolished?
The title of Order of the British Empire should
be retained. I see criticism of it as purely an attempt to attack
the honours system on any ground possible. (See my answer to Question
5, above.) Is Imperial College, London subject to similar abuse
on account of its name? Of course not. The name is a part of that
institution's history. It is therefore meaningless to make the
comment "outdated".
Orders of chivalry all over Europe have what—at
first sight—appear to be unusual names. Nevertheless, these
are prized rather than belittled and mocked. When was the elephant
last seen in the streets of Copenhagen? Yet Denmark's leading
order is the Order of the Elephant. The leading Swedish order
is that of the Seraphim—an angelic order one presumes! In
the Netherlands, we find the Order of the Dutch Lion. (Presumably
the only lions in the Netherlands are in Dutch zoos.) One could
continue this line of thought through Europe and beyond.
The titles listed above (and all other peerage
and chivalric titles) should be retained. There are numerous other
titles in our society. Think of the academic titles "Prof."
and "Dr", the various ecclesiastical titles and styles,
the judicial ones and the dozens in the armed forces. No-one suggests
these should be abolished.
13. Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors
should continue to be given the prefix "Right Honourable"?
It is clearly appropriate that Privy Counsellors—members
of a body that has advised the Sovereign since Saxon times—should
be distinguished by some prefix and, since they have been using
"Right Honourable" for generations, they should continue
with this one.
I see no reason for change.
14. 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?
It is no coincidence that single-class orders
(eg the Garter, the Thistle, the Order of Merit) are all small.
Orders larger than a few dozens really need some gradations to
help tell the members apart. The five-rank order (with the two
highest ranks conferring the honour of knighthood) is now well
established in this country. I believe that further such orders
should be established and I develop this point elsewhere.
There have been suggestions that the existing
ranks are too numerous to be understood. Consider, however, the
number of ranks in the armed forces. How many people could say
whether a Lieutenant-Commander is senior or junior to a Lieutenant-Colonel?
(Or, even, which branch of the services each is in?) I suspect
few could answer this with any certainty. Yet I hear no calls
for the abolition of these ranks. In universities we have the
ranks or (to use the synonym that universities have preferred
for centuries) "degrees" of Bachelor, Master and Doctor.
These are used in many faculties. Arts, Science and Philosophy
are the most common but there are now many more with additional
ones being invented, it seems, by the day. The result is dozens
and dozens of post-nominal initials, many of which are still obscure.
Again, I detect no pressure for abolition.
15. 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?
No changes should be made. This diversity will
work its way through the system naturally if we genuinely have
the fair society we claim to be striving for. If this doesn't
happen then we should look to what we are measuring and not attempt
to adjust the tool to influence the results that it is giving
us.
16. What are the effects, if any, of
the honours system on public administration in the UK? Is it a
motivating or a demotivating force?
It is a motivating force . . . just as it is
elsewhere of course.
17. 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?
It is fair. These categories have always had
a close link with the Crown: officers in the armed forces, for
instance, hold Her Majesty's commission; all four groups (adding
consuls to the above three groups) have a particular uniform prescribed
for them (ambassadors have the famous "embroidered sleeves
and seams" and no-one can be ignorant of armed forces uniform).
It is therefore fitting that the armed and civil servants of the
Crown, and members of the diplomatic and consular services be
appointed to the Order of the Bath and the Order of St Michael
and St George respectively.
Since the date that these two orders were established,
however, other groups have joined employment by the state—the
most two notable examples being those working in the state sectors
of medicine and education. I suggest that a new order (with five
ranks—the two highest conferring knighthood—and with
seniority immediately below that of St Michael and St George)
be introduced for those employed in the state sectors of medicine,
education and allied areas.
18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social/employment status and the class
of honour received?
No more than it is possible to break the link
between social/employment status and salary. Cleaners are arguably
more important to an organisation than anyone else and they do
work that few others would want to do. Yet do they receive the
highest salary? Far from it.
19. Is there an inevitable conflict of
interest when civil servants are the main judges in assessing
whether other civil servants receive honours?
I see no conflict. It is of the nature of civil
servants' work to deal with aspects of the lives of other civil
servants. I know of no suggestion that this is a problem in other
areas. Do civil servants dealing with pensions, for instance,
have a conflict of interest when dealing with the pensions of
other civil servants?
20. 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 of such committees from ever receiving an honour?
I see no benefit in increasing the number.
To my mind, banning members from ever receiving
an honour themselves would be a very dangerous step. The people
doing the job would thereby have no interest in the honours system—by
which I mean they would be both disinterested and uninterested.
This would do the system much harm.
21. Should people who serve the state
and the public well in paid employment be recognised by higher
pay rather than the award of honours?
This question suggests a fundamental misunderstanding
of what holding a rank in an order of chivalry means. Should ranks
in the armed forces be abolished in favour of higher pay? I think
most people would see this as a ridiculous suggestion. What is
being suggested here is that honours and money are interconvertible.
No doubt Maundy Gregory thought this but I hope members of the
Committee do not and that they understand what an offensive suggestion
is imported by this question.
22. Would it be sensible, as the Wilson
Review proposes, to cut down the number of orders of honours so
that state servants have to compete on similar terms with everybody
else?
I disagree fundamentally with this suggestion.
As I have already indicated, I believe that certain orders should
be reserved for certain persons because they qualify for an honour
from the nature of their work. It is to the benefit (by indicating
provenance) of those in other orders that this difference should
be identifiable. This difference is self-evident if the name of
the order is different.
I have already explained that I would like to
see an order for those working in the state sectors of medicine
and education. Other areas that might have their own (five-rank)
orders include
— Sport and entertainment;
There are clearly many other areas. The Order
of the British Empire would cover non-specific awards (as it does
at present).
Of course, some people would be eligible for
more than one order (again, as at present). A school teacher,
for example, might be eligible for membership of both the medicine
and education order and of the scholarship order. I would see
this as being not uncommon.
23. Has respect for the honours system been
diminished by recent disclosures about its operation?
My own experience when talking to others about
this is that there is no less respect for the honours system itself:
honours come from the Crown (even if the Liberal Establishment
seeks to mock this). However, I know many people who have no respect
for those people (including politicians) who wish to abuse the
system for their own ends.
The honours system is being attacked and people
wish to defend it.
24. 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?
As my answer to Question 23 suggests, I agree
with this quotation.
25. Is the general public aware of the
honours system and the part they could play in it through nominations?
I have no doubt that the general public has
been aware of the honours system for decades (probably since the
foundation of the Order of the British Empire in 1917). I believe
that since 1993 it has been aware of the part it plays in nominations
too.
26. How should awareness of the system
be raised?
I have a number of related observations to offer.
The dreadful British practice of "inverse
snobbery" should be confronted. Members of orders of chivalry
should be encouraged to use the relevant post-nominal letters
and (where appropriate) prefixes. Similarly, the insignia should
be worn (their purpose) and neither framed nor put away to do
little more than gather dust. Members should be proud of their
membership in the same way that members of the armed forces, universities
and so on are proud of their membership. In the process, this
should inspire others. With a higher number of awards (and all
of them more visible), everyone would encounter people with awards.
This would be a "virtuous circle".
Those appointed to orders of chivalry and who
are unaware of the details of their new rank should be given full
details of it. Let me quote a personal example. Two years ago,
I saw a well-known and recently knighted sportsman sign a register
of honorary graduates at a university. He signed it "Sir
S- R-". Did he previously sign himself "Mr S- R-"?
I doubt it. Had someone taken just a little time and trouble to
advise the new knight, such a simple mistake would never have
happened. Similarly, I gather Sir Simon Jenkins doesn't "use"
his title. I recall, though, that Sir Simon is so misinformed
as to believe that being knighted changes his name. Again, "Sir"
is no more part of his name than "Mr" was previously.
People should be encouraged to use the post-nominal
letters correctly. I notice that the B.B.C. tends to say that
X has been appointed a C.B.E. but that Y has been given a—or,
worse, the—O.B.E. These letters all refer to people (whether
Commander or Officer) and using "given" therefore is
clearly wrong. (It is the insignia that is given.) In passing,
I note that even this document—written by a Committee that
is about to make serious recommendations about the future of the
Honours system—indulges in this practice eg "after
being told she was to be given an OBE" (see above).
27. 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 departments?
This ratio is irrelevant. If it were 100:0 one
year and 0:100 the following, I would be intrigued by it from
a statistical point of view but the matter would not concern me
in any other sense. (It would concern me, of course, if such an
extreme ratio happened time after time.)
28. 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 disadvantages of such an "all-nominations"
system?
The system should not be changed.
Those whose light is hidden behind the proverbial
bushel (ie whose activities are not well-known to the public)
would be at a considerable disadvantage in an "all public
nominations" system. Consider, for instance, the late Dr
David Kelly, the circumstances of whose death caused so much controversy.
He was a C.M.G. Who in the general public would have known enough
of his work to have nominated him?
29. 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?
No and no. There will be so many other activities
affected by such an Act (one thinks of references for jobs as
a prime example) that this problem will undoubtedly have to be
tackled elsewhere. Solutions adopted elsewhere can be applied
to the honours system.
30. Isn't there a danger that more openness
will lead to personal embarrassments or a series of timid recommendations?
There is. People should be encouraged to make
bold recommendations; unsuccessful candidates should not be embarrassed.
31. Is there evidence of political abuse
of the honours system? If there is abuse, what mechanisms might
be put in place to reduce it?
I know of no abuse. I do notice, however, that
it is now thought acceptable to make political capital from the
honours system. This saddens me. Those indulging in this practice
ought to know better.
I gather a witness to the Committee has claimed
the honours system has been involved in electoral abuse. This
surprises me for a number of reasons. (Indeed, to be frank, I
find the claim very unlikely.) I would have thought that the transfer
of money is the main inducement in most electoral abuse. Under
such circumstances, would the same witness question the existence
of money?
32. What role, if any, should Parliament,
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales play
in the honours system?
These three should be able to nominate candidates
for awards (as the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office currently do). However, they should play no privileged
role.
33. The United States Congress awards
a Medal of Honor. Could Parliament do something similar?
It could. If it did, however, I think it important
that there should be no confusion over the award. Such a medal
would be in the same class as "public servant of the year
... prison officer of the year, . . . Royal Society awards [and]
the Booker and Turner prizes". It is the Sovereign alone
who is fons honoris in the United Kingdom; Parliament is
not.
34. 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?
I see no reason for thinking that it would be
helpful.
SUMMARY
— The honours system in our country
should be expanded considerably by the foundation of new orders
of chivalry based on the present ones and copying their structure.
— The everyday use of rank in orders
of chivalry (including the wearing of insignia where appropriate)
should be encouraged.
| 
