Memorandum by the Royal College of Nursing
(HON 82)
With a membership of over 360,000 registered
nurses, midwives, health visitors, nursing students, health care
assistants and nurse cadets, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN)
is the voice of nursing across the UK and the largest professional
union of nursing staff in the world. RCN members work in a variety
of hospital and community settings in the NHS and the independent
sector. The RCN promotes patient and nursing interests on a wide
range of issues by working closely with Government, the UK parliaments
and other national and European political institutions, trade
unions, professional bodies and voluntary organisations.
A number of nurses have received honours in
the past and, we hope, will continue to do so in the future. Currently
one in 20,000 nurses receives an honour, a figure which we think
should be significantly raised. With this in mind our comments
focus on how the honours system might affect and reward nurses.
We have limited our response to those questions we feel able to
comment on.
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?
Those who receive the current honours are usually
delighted (very low refusal rate) at the national recognition.
The RCN believes that the UK should continue to have an honours
system, recognizing thousands, rather than restricting to say
100 per year.
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?
If any honour is given for work done during
employment, it should be for excellence, achievement and contribution
beyond what is expected within that job.
The concept of active citizenship and making
a difference to the community, locally, nationally or internationally,
could be used in the awarding of national honours.
6. Are the criteria for awards well enough
known and properly understood?
In our opinion the criteria are not currently
well known.
7. Is the award of honours bound to be
subjective -"an art rather than a science" as the Wilson
Review puts it?
Awards are bound to be subjective as they are
dependent on whether an individual is put forward as well as chosen
from other nominees. However, if the criteria used were reflected
in the nomination form so that each nomination covered the same
information, it would be easier to make the choice on a level
playing field.
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?
If the awards are for distinction in particular
fields, the professional, business and trade union bodies should
have a role.
10. What would be the advantages and
disadvantages of restricting honours to those who do voluntary
work, either full-time or part-time?
Voluntary work or active citizenship should
be an important element of the honours system, but honours should
not be restricted only to voluntary work. Only those who are retired
or sufficiently wealthy are able to undertake voluntary work full
time and therefore such a restriction would restrict the honours
to a particular section of society. However, work undertaken on
a voluntary basis plays an enormous part in the richness of community
and social life and is of a different order to work undertaken
in exchange for a wage/salary, and should be recognized.
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?
The honours system should be simple and transparent
and one Order, rather than based on the current class system.
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 concept of the British Empire is certainly
outdated and should be replaced, as suggested by an Order of the
United Kingdom or some other such unifying name. The RCN has no
view on whether titles should be abolished.
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?
The experience of other countries highlights
the difficulty of having one category, particularly in comparing
the contribution made by, for example, a person who has distinguished
themselves in business career, compared with someone who has selflessly
voluntarily worked in the community over and above their paid
employment for many years. However the levels should not be reflective
of class but of effort, contribution and selflessness.
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?
The composition of the Honours Committees should
reflect the general population in terms of gender, ethnicity,
religion/belief, and age.
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 clearly unjustified that one in 123 diplomats
receives an honour compared to one in 20,000 nurses. State servants
should compete on the same terms as everybody else.
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?
No.
18. Is it possible to break the apparently
inevitable link between social/employment status and the class
of honour received?
It must be possible to break that link. For
example, nurses who do receive an honour inevitably receive honours
in lower orders than (for example) doctors. If the criterion is
distinction in a particular field, the distinction should be the
same in different fields but result in the same level of award.
19. Is there an inevitable conflict of
interest when civil servants are the main judges in assessing
whether other civil servants receive honours?
We believe there is. Civil servants should not
be the main judges, but have the same representation on the Honours
Committees as any other walk of life.
20. Should there be an increase in the
number of independent outsiders who sit on the honours committees?
Should the committees be made 100 percent independent, perhaps
by banning all members of such committees from ever receiving
an honour?
The Committees should reflect the population.
We believe that members of the Committees should not be able to
receive an honour whilst serving on the Committee and for (say)
five years afterwards. Those who have an honour already should
not be precluded from participating, nor should there be a permanent
ban from receiving an honour in the future.
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?
It is difficult to see how this could be managed
when, under Agenda for Change, most health care staff will be
on the same graded pay scale. Indeed it would be hard to justify
this when the theory behind Agenda for Change is one of equal
pay for work of equal value, and linked to a knowledge and skills
framework.
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?
Yes.
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?
In our view, consideration should be given to
all honours being generated directly by the public or by organisations,
with only one entry gate.
Royal College of Nursing
March 2004
| 
