Memorandum by Mr T Cooper (HON 84)
I understand that your committee which is discussing
the honours system at the present time, has invited submissions
from the public on the question of what changes should be made
to it. I understand that in some quarters, changes are felt to
be necessary because the present system has been criticised by
certain figures in the public eye, figures to whom the media are
inclined to give a degree of attention whenever they express an
opinion.
I maintain that it is not the honours system
that is at fault but the use made of it by politicians in recent
years. It is not the names and degrees of the awards offered which
are at fault but the unworthiness of some of the recipients. Too
often public honours have gone to people who have succeeded in
making themselves very rich or who are simply in the headlines
as celebrities—TV soap stars, pop musicians, sports personalities
and the occasional outright crook. I omit the obscure political
hacks all parties have sought to reward from time to time. Probably
nothing would be better for the health of the system than a cleansing
of the honours list so that it is restricted to people who make
a lasting moral, intellectual or creative contribution to the
life of the United Kingdom. If there are too few worthy people
to make a long list in any one year, then it should be short:
there should be no hunting around for names to make up numbers
or "add interest".
In his book, "English History, 1914-1925",
AJP Taylor made the point that the honours system has played a
large part in rewarding the sustained efforts on behalf of the
nation of hundreds of not very well paid public servants and many
voluntary sector workers. They have made a huge contribution to
our well-being down the years. Would new honours with drab titles
like "Order of Britain" or "Community Service Medal
(Class 1, 2 or 3)" have the same ring or be as much of a
reward, as our present knighthoods, OBE's, MBE's and other honours,
all of which have an intimate connection with our history? And
do I detect a subtle bit of republicanism in the idea of abolishing
the present honours and replacing them with ones that have no
tradition or history behind them? Is the intention to disconnect
gradually the giving of honours from the monarchy?
It appears that the present controversy over
the honours system began when a minor celebrity poet rejected
the offer of an award. He is alleged to have said that the OBE
and the MBE reminded him of slavery, which shows a degree of ignorance
of the history of the country he lives in (and its empire). His
views should be entirely disregarded. The OBE and the MBE should
be left alone. No one believes that they represent any lingering
vestiges of empire, but they serve as a public commemoration of
a huge slice of history. The idea of dropping them is sinister
because it smacks of an attempt to airbrush the British Empire
out of our present consciousness. It would also represent a party-political
tampering with a system that ought to be as much above politics
as the monarch in whose name awards are made.
Leave the honours system alone. Preserve it
from the depredations of knee jerk political correctness. Don't
offer honours to celebrities who are likely to try to look smart,
grab headlines and score political points by turning them down.
Remember that any honours system can be discredited, whatever
it is. And I'll wager that any big changes to the present system
will appear such a part of a party-political programme of "modernisation"
that it won't be long before a clever journalist is dubbing any
new "Order of Britain" or "Community Service Medal"
the "Order of Lenin" and the "Hero of Labour Medal"
respectively.
March 2004
| 
