Memorandum by Dr Aneez Esmail (HON 87)
A PERSONAL RESPONSE
BY DR
ANEEZ ESMAIL
TO THE
CONSULTATION
In June 2002 I received a letter from the clerk
to the Honours committee informing me that I had been nominated
for an OBE and asking me whether I would accept this nomination.
After careful consideration I declined and in this submission
I will attempt to identify the key reasons for both declining
the nomination and why I believe that the honours system, as it
is currently organised, should cease to operate.
Partly, my reasons for refusing were because
I believe that I should not be "rewarded" or honoured
for doing my job for which I am already paid and rewarded, when
people such as school governors operating on a purely voluntary
basis receive no, or little, recognition. In addition, a lot of
my work occurs as a member of a team and an award for me personally
fails to provide recognition of the valuable contribution made
by my colleagues and co-workers.[9]
I also felt quite strongly that a modern honours
system should not refer to an imperial past. I believe it is wrong
that although the OBE and other related honours recognises a contribution
to this country, that it should be done in the context of a system
which was developed to reward a contribution to the Empire. Being
of Indian origin I think it would be wrong to accept an honour
that is so clearly associated with Britain's imperial past.
Whilst I am mindful of the range of questions
that the Committee raised, my remarks on the honours system are
largely confined to the issues of merit, elitism, discrimination,
motivation and fairness. These aspects are also affected by how
any such "merit" system is both seen, and perceived,
to operate and so some of my comments also relate to the Committee's
questions on public confidence and transparency.
The Merit Issue: Over the last 12 years, one
aspect of my research has examined the use of "merit awards"[10]
within the NHS and the discrimination that these award systems
have displayed, and continue to display. My research has highlighted
how such "merit" schemes have exhibited systematic discrimination
on the basis of ethnicity and gender.[11]
Earlier research between 1975 and 1980 had also highlighted the
discrimination in the awards systems discrimination which led
some researchers to call for the system to be abolished because
"it remains immutably unfair, divisive, and in its secrecy,
contemptible. No other profession would copy this system and consultants
would gain respect by scrapping it—especially self-respect."[12]
The criticisms of the NHS merit awards systems
mirror the criticisms that have been made of the national honours
systems, namely those of elitism, bias, secrecy and in particular
discrimination against women and ethnic minorities.
Ministers have stated that the system that allocates
Honours operates in such a way that "[All] awards are made
strictly on merit".[13]
If such statements are taken in good faith, then the allocation
system appears to have a problem finding women and ethnic minorities
worthy of merit. As Julie Mellor, chair of the Equal Opportunities
Commission, recently stated: "Recent media commentary on
the honours system has also highlighted the low numbers of women
to receive `senior' honours. This reflects a wider problem that
won't be resolved until Britain's leaders act to make sure women
are not prevented from getting to the top."[14]
The similarities between the NHS awards scheme
and the Honours system is also evident when examining the statements
made about improvements to the schemes, which detail improvements
to the number of women and ethnic minorities that are receiving
such awards. However, despite the marginal improvements the same
patterns still emerge with women and ethnic minorities clustered
around the "lower" awards. For example, a 2001 parliamentary
briefing on the Honours system stated that:
"Over the last six years there has been
a significant improvement in the number of honours granted to
members of ethnic minorities (up from 20 to 52 or 160%). But even
in the extended millennium list it proved possible only to find
80 candidates.[15]
[Emphasis added]."
Were there truly only 80 candidates worthy of
consideration or was it because, as another chapter of the briefing
stated: "Nominating bodies and organisations tended to stick
with own hierarchical conceptions of who should get what."[16]
Even with the increased number of nominations made by the public
it was also reported that: "Departments do not include many
of the publicly nominated candidates towards the top of the lists
which they submit to Ceremonial Branch."[17]
The table below uses the data provided in the
2001 briefing on the honours system but has calculated the percentages
figures for the allocation of honours as a percentage of the total
number of awards made to ethnic minorities between 1995 and 2000.
Table 1 NUMBER
OF HONOURS AWARDED TO ETHNIC MINORITIES BETWEEN 1995 AND 2000
|
| Knight/Dame
| C | OBE
| MBE | Total
| % of list | Total
|
| Date | | |
| | |
| |
|
| BD 00 | —
| 2 | 16
| 34 | 52
| 5.9 | 881
|
| NY 00* | 2 |
8 | 18
| 51 | 79
| 5.1 | 1,550
|
| BD 99 | 2 |
4 | 10
| 26 | 42
| 4.2 | 1,000
|
| NY 99 | 2 |
3 | 12
| 36 | 53
| 5.3 | 1,000
|
| BD 98 | 2 |
2 | 7
| 30 | 41
| 4.0 | 1,000
|
| NY 98 | —
| 3 | 3
| 20 | 26
| 2.6 | 1,000
|
| BD 97 | 3 |
3 | 5
| 14 | 25
| 2.5 | 1,000
|
| NY 97 | 1 |
1 | 1
| 21 | 24
| 2.5 | 960
|
| BD 96 | 1 |
1 | 6
| 20 | 28
| 2.7 | 1,038
|
| NY 96 | —
| 2 | 3
| 17 | 22
| 2.2 | 1,000
|
| BD 95 | —
| — | 6
| 16 | 22
| 2.2 | 1,000
|
| NY 95 | —
| 2 | 5
| 13 | 20
| 1.9 | 1,052
|
|
| Total | 13 (2.9%)
| 31 (7.1% | 92 (21.2%)
| 298 (68.6) | (434)
| | 1,2481 |
|
| * long list |
Source: Amended table. Original table obtained from.[18]
It is clear that the large majority of awards are made within
the MBE and OBE categories (89.8%). Also of interest was that
over that time period honours awarded to ethnic minorities only
accounted for 3.47% of the total number of awards made. Ethnic
minorities are approximately 6% of the population in the United
Kingdom.
The same disproportionate level of awards is visible in the
way honours are awarded to different groups on the basis of occupation.
Despite the current governments stated determination to increase
the number of teachers and medical professionals receiving honours
the 2001 data showed that the odds for receiving an honour where
as follows:
Diplomat: one in 123,
Armed forces: one in 1090,
Civil servant: one in 3125,
Teacher: one in 15500
Nurse: one in 20000.[19]
According to a 2001 briefing on the Honours system, "the
criteria we use put achievement before service. To this extent,
there must be a question whether our system fairly reflects the
value which the country puts on voluntary service, which tends
to find its reward at the MBE level".[20]
[Emphasis added]. I do not agree with such criteria and the impact
they have.
Transparency and reporting: In March 2004, a parliamentary
question sought information on the membership of the advisory
committee responsible for recommending the awarding of honours
to persons involved in sport. The Ministerial reply was as follows:
"No. Information about advisory committees in the honours
system and the advice they give is protected from disclosure under
exemptions 2 and 8 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government
Information, and is not made public."[21]
The question did not seek information on those people awarded,
or refused, honours only for information on those people involved
in administering the allocation of awards. Exemption 8 (of the
Code of Practice) makes no mention of advisory committee's—the
guidance all relates to protecting the individuals nominated for
an award.[22]
Such blanket refusals to divulge general information do not
sit well alongside statements that in future the Honours system
will operate with greater openness and transparency.
Recognising and celebrating achievement: I agree that the
nation should recognise citizens who have displayed outstanding
community service, dedication, discovery or bravery but any such
system must be truly "merit" based. The nomination,
selection and awards process must operate, and be seen to operate,
openly and with clear criteria. For example, the Public Servants
of the Year Award scheme, which are supported by the government,
provide clear criteria for each award category, the selection
and judging process as well as the names and backgrounds of the
judges.[23] In addition,
this scheme also has awards that explicitly recognise the contribution
made by teams of people, and also allows the award recipients
to make a donation to a charity of their choosing. I believe that
this is a much better system because it recognises the contribution
of all team members to the pursuit of excellence. I certainly
believe that I could not achieve half of what I achieve without
the support and contribution of other team members working in
the deprived inner city area for which I was commended. By all
means recognise the individual contribution but some mention of
the team would also be important.
CONCLUSION
I am glad that the Public Administration Select Committee
is investigating the awards system and I hope that recommendations
will follow that will make the system fairer, more open and more
appropriate to society in the twenty first century.
I can see the importance of recognising a significant contribution
to society but I also think that it is a truism that individual
contributions cannot be seen in isolation so some mechanism to
identify team contributions should be recognised.
I think transparency is critical if people are to have faith
in the system.
I think the obvious class hierarchy should be scrapped and
there should be one level of award for everyone. If public servants
such as judges achieve a certain level of office then by all means
give them a title but don't make it out as though it is an "honour".
But if judges or civil servants are to be honoured, then they
should be honoured for their contribution to society and judged
for that contribution like everyone else. A monetary reward given
to a charity of the person's choice would be a good way of honouring
that contribution. We also need to do away with titles such as
"Sir" and "Dame" and people should just use
the designation in their name.
To have modern awards, there needs to be a modern name and
doing away with notions of empire is really important.
April 2004
9
The recognition of the "team" is a key part of the
Public Servants of the Year Award scheme. See www.cipfa.org.uk/awards Back
10
The merit award scheme was introduced in 1948 at the beginning
of the NHS and consisted of distinction awards and discretionary
points awards. As part of the new NHS Contract, these two awards
are to be replaced by the Clinical Excellence award. Back
11
See for example: Esmail, A. & Everington, S. 1993, "Racial
discrimination against doctors from ethnic minorities.",
British Medical Journal, vol. 306, no. 13 March, pp. 691-692;
Esmail, A., Everington, S., & Doyle, H. 1998, "Racial
discrimination in the allocation of distinction awards? Analysis
of list of award holders by type of award, specialty and region",
British Medical Journal, vol. 316, no. 17 January, pp. 193-195
and Esmail, A., Abel, P., & Everington, S. 2003, "Discrimination
in the discretionary points award scheme: comparison of white
with non-white consultants and men with women", British Medical
Journal, vol. 326, no. 29 March, pp. 687-688. Back
12
Bruggen, P. & Bourne, S. 1982, "The distinction awards
system in England and Wales 1980.", British Medical Journal,
vol. 284, no. 22 May, pp. 1577-1580. Back
13
Lords Written Answers, 16 January 2004: Lord Lester of Herne
Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: What are the safeguards against
bias and discrimination in the honours system?
Baroness Amos: Every effort is made to find good honours candidates
from every walk of life and field of activity. All awards are
made strictly on merit. Column WA105. Back
14
Equal Opportunities Commission, January 2004, `Sex and power:
who runs Britain?', www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/news/5-jan-sexandpower.asp Back
15
Honours: Criteria for levels of Honours, 2001, page 9, www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/JP%202wilkdoc%20Criteria%20for%20Levels%20of%20Honours.doc Back
16
Honours: Criteria for Nominations, 2001, page 5 www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/JP%202wilkdoc%20Criteria%20for%20Levels%20of%20Honours.doc Back
17
Honours: Nominations, 2001, page 3, www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/JP%201wilkdoc%20Nominations.doc Back
18
www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/ JP%204wilkdoc%20Oversight.doc Back
19
Nursing standard, 3 December 2003, `Honours list overlooks nurses.' Back
20
Honours: Criteria for levels of Honours, 2001, www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/JP%202wilkdoc%20Criteria%20for%20Levels%20of%20Honours.doc Back
21
Sports (Honours): Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State
for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the membership of
the advisory committee responsible for recommending the awarding
of honours to persons involved in sport; what the background is
of each member; how long each has served on the committee; what
their sporting expertise is; and if she will make a statement.
[161216]
Mr. Caborn: No. Information about advisory committees in the honours
system and the advice they give is protected from disclosure under
exemptions 2 and 8 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government
Information, and is not made public.
22 Mar 2004 : Column 579W Back
22
22 8(c) Information, opinions and assessments given in relation
to recommendations for honours. http://www.cfoi.org.uk/pdf/copguidance.pdf
(page 48) Back
23
See www.cipfa.org.uk/awards Back
| 
