Memorandum by Nicholas Jackson (HON 89)
I have long been curious about honours in this
country, and have recently set about learning more about the history,
purpose, and related procedures of this fascinating subject. In
doing so, I have come to the conclusion that, in general, the
UK honours system is a good thing (and has the potential to be
an extremely good thing) but is currently in need of some level
of reform.
1. DOES THE
UNITED KINGDOM
NEED AN
HONOURS SYSTEM
AT ALL?
I believe that there is still a need for a national
honours system, even in the modern age. If the state routinely
punishes transgressions (by means of fines or prison sentences)
then it seems both reasonable and desirable that it should also
reward good works and eminent achievements.
The consultation document[l] suggests:
It might be argued . . . that there are now so
many specific awards for excellence and public service from public
servant of the year to prison officer of the year, from Royal
Society awards for scientific achievement to accolades for cultural
preeminence such as the Booker and Turner prizes that there is
no need for general honours. To these should be added the growing
number of local and regional awards emphasising good citizenship
and volutary effort.
I would argue that there are a number of differences
between the examples cited here, and the existing national honours.
Firstly, such awards are by their nature prizes, and typically
refer to a specific period—for example, `Winner of the Turner
Prize, 1997'. The writer Peter Carey, for example, has twice been
awarded the Booker Prize[2], in 1988 and 2001. Secondly, such
awards are often transitory in existence, and often rebranded
(the `Booker Prize', for example, is now officially titled the
`Man Booker Prize'). As such, I suggest they are perhaps not sufficient
replacements for a national honours system.
Do we need as many honours as we have now (3,000
per year)? Could we make do with, say, 10 or 100 new honours each
year?
In my opinion, the main problem with the UK
honours system as it currently stands, is that it is widely perceived
as being largely irrelevant to the majority of the population.
I have only ever met one person who received an honour for public
service—a friend's father, who received an MBE for many
years' work for local charities—and I do not believe my
experiences to be atypical in this regard. It seems that to most
people honours are something that rich and famous people award
each other, rather than (as surely should be the case) something
to which any member of the population might aspire. It thus seems
natural to suppose that the most effective means of reversing
this situation would be to award more (rather than fewer) honours
each year, and to ensure that a greater proportion go to those
who have performed some service to the community.
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?
The question of reform of the House of Lords
is an extremely complex one, and my specific views on the subject
are as yet undecided. If, as seems likely, the remaining hereditary
peers are soon to be removed from the House of Lords, I would
still like members of the reformed chamber to be granted (life)
peerages, and accorded the same forms of address as at present.
I would prefer that holders of hereditary peerages (and baronetcies)
retain their title, and also be permitted to pass those titles
on to their descendants in the normal way. But I am unconvinced
that a case currently exists for the creation of any more such
titles.
I am reminded of a comment made by the late
Duke of Norfolk, who had pursued an eminent career in the army
(receiving the Military Cross during the Second World War) before
succeeding to his titles in later life, which succinctly encapsulates
my feelings on the hereditary principle: "Anyone can be Duke
of Norfolk, but I'm rather proud of that medal".
3. IN RELATION
TO THE
MACHINERY OF
THE HONOURS
SYSTEM, WHAT
LESSONS MAY
BE LEARNED
FROM THE
EXPERIENCE OTHER
COUNTRIES?
The chief lesson seems to be that some form
of national honours system still serves a valid purpose in the
modern age.
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?
I would say that all of these criteria should
be used to decide the award of an honour. The state should have
appropriate mechanisms in place to recognise outstanding eminence
in a particular sphere of achievement, and to reward those who
have made a substantial contribution to their local community
or to society in general.
6. ARE THE
CRITERIA FOR
AWARDS WELL
ENOUGH KNOWN
AND PROPERLY
UNDERSTOOD?
Almost certainly not. To make the honours system
more relevant to society in general, the selection process and
the accompanying criteria must be made far more transparent and
accountable. I acknowledge and applaud the reforms that have been
made in recent years, but suggest that there is further room for
improvement.
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?
The days of the British Empire are indeed gone,
and I can well understand why many people (most notably, in recent
times, the poet Benjamin Zephaniab) regard the name of the Order
as being either outdated or inappropriate—while the Empire
was responsible for a lot of good works throughout the world,
there were a number of shameful episodes (such as the Opium Wars)
which should not be commemorated (although I believe it is important
to acknowledge such events and try to avoid repeating them).
Perhaps it is indeed time to retire the Order
of the British Empire in favour of a new Order with fewer negative
historical connotations. An Order of the United Kingdom would
seem to be an appropriate replacement, although the accompanying
postnominal letters might be less than euphonious (OCUK, KCUK/DCUK,
CUK, OUK, MUK). An Order of Great Britain would appear to exclude
residents of Northern Ireland.
Should titles such as Dame and Sir, Lord, Lady,
Baron etc be abolished?
I have often seen it suggested that the award
of an honour should not accord a special title to the recipient,
and that the changing of one's name or form of address is in some
way inconsistent with modern society.
There are, however, many occasions on which
a person's style of address might change: A friend of mine recently
married, and as a consequence both her surname and her title have
changed. At some stage around my sixteenth birthday I started
receiving letters addressed to `Mr N Jackson' (rather than `Master
N Jackson'). Last week I was delighted to receive confirmation
from the appointed examiners that, on the basis of my recently
submitted PhD thesis and accompanying viva roce examination, the
University of Warwick is shortly to grant me the title `Dr'. Ordained
clergy typically adopt the style `Reverend' upon the occasion
of their consecration. A friend's father is a consultant surgeon,
and was justifiably proud to revert to the traditional `Mr' upon
the occasion of his promotion.
It seems absurd that, given that there are many
occasions upon which one's title may change, and many organisations
(universities, hospitals, churches) which have the right to grant
honorific titles, the state itself should be prevented from doing
so too—as long as such appointments are made in a suitably
transparent, accountable, and meritocratic manner.
In preparing this letter, I learned that the
New Zealand Order of Merit was modified in recent years to abolish
the titles of `Sir' and `Dame', replacing the relevant grades
with the awards of `Principal Companion' (PCNZM) and `Distinguished
Companion' (DCNZM). I would prefer that similar modifications
were not made to the UK system—the current hierarchy of
Member/Officer/Commander/Knight or Dame Commander/Knight or Dame
Grand Cross has a reasonably obvious ordering, whereas it is not
at all clear which of a Principal Companion or a Distinguished
Companion is the more senior.
According to the consultation document, the
Wilson Review found that Britain appears to be the only country
in the world where the titles Sir and Dame are used.
This may indeed be correct, but the mere fact
that no other country awards its citizens such titles is not sufficient
argument for the UK to cease doing so as well. Indeed, many countries
have unique forms of address—for example, Dutch university
graduates are accorded the title `Doctorandus' (abbreviated `Drs',
and distinct from the postgraduate title `Dr') upon completion
of their first degree. The UK is blessed with a rich and ancient
history, and one would be saddened were any of it to be arbitrarily
or unnecessarily swept away as part of some ill-conceived programme
of `international standardisation'.
13. IS IT
APPROPRIATE THAT
PRIVY COUNSELLORS
SHOULD CONTINUE
TO BE
GIVEN THE
PREFIX RIGHT
HONOURABLE?
I see no reason why not. Many other countries
(notably the United States of America) accord certain public officials
(parliamentary representatives, mayors, and so forth) the title
`Honourable' or similar, with no apparent ill effects. As I understand
it, the style `Right Honourable' has been in use in this context
for centuries. I can think of no valid reasons why the situation
should be changed.
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?
I believe it is necessary to retain some division
within each Order, to reflect the `varying levels of achievement
or service for which an award might be made. In any sphere of
activity, there will always be different levels of achievement
and merit, and to ignore this fact would be, in my opinion, misguided.
Additionally, the potential for promotion within an Order might
provide further encouragement for those appointed to a lower grade
of membership.
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?
This is a tricky issue, and one which appears
to have no simple solution. Ideally there should be no discrimination—except
on grounds of merit and achievement—on who is considered
for an honour. But I appreciate that certain sections of society
tend to be under-represented in this regard, so perhaps there
is some validity in the suggestion that such groups should be
more strongly represented than at present. It may be feasible
to introduce some form of `blind' into part of the selection process—so
that a candidate's achievements are considered without reference
to their gender, or racial or cultural background. Typically,
university examination papers are marked in this way, with the
candidate being identified on the answer papers by a unique number.
The names are correlated with the examination numbers only after
the papers have been marked and checked.
Such a system might be difficult to implement
in the more prestigious cases—a committee told "the
candidate has been principal conductor of the City of Birmingham
Symphony Orchestra for many years, and is now principal conductor
of the Berlin Philharmonic" might readily guess the identity
of the person under consideration.
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?
I have long thought it unfair that two of the
three main 13K Orders are restricted to a comparatively small
section of the population, leaving only one Order to cover many
other worthy sections of society (eminent academics, artists,
musicians, actors, and writers, as well as teachers, doctors,
nurses, policemen, and so forth). My understanding is that the
Order of the Bath is currently reserved for members of the Army
and the Civil Service, and that the Order of Saint Michael and
Saint George is reserved for diplomats. It occurs to me that the
remit of both Orders could be expanded to redress this imbalance
somewhat. The Order of the Bath could be extended to reward a
greater range of people who perform some form of public service,
including certain important professions (doctors, nurses, and
teachers, for example) who are currently overlooked in this regard.
The Order of Saint Michael and Saint George could be similarly
expanded to include a greater range of people who have served
UK, EU, or Commonwealth interests overseas. It might be necessary
to introduce additional grades of membership to reflect this expansion.
18. IS IT
POSSIBLE TO
BREAK THE
APPARENTLY INEVITABLE
LINK BETWEEN
SOCIAL/EMPLOYMENT
STATUS AND
THE CLASS
OF HONOUR
RECEIVED?
Possible—and indeed desirable—but
probably difficult in practice. There is currently a rather circular
situation in place, with the perceived link between social status
and honours reinforcing the public nominations and selection process.
I suspect that this would lessen if the honours system is made
more relevant to society in general, and suggest that this will
only occur if the public perception of honours as a stuffy and
cloistered establishment is altered by increased inclusivity and
transparency. For example, children attending a school where one
or two of the longer-serving teachers have been awarded MBEs or
OBEs (or equivalent) will perhaps be less inclined to regard honours
as something arcane and archaic, but instead as something to which
`ordinary' people might reasonably and realistically aspire.
19. IS THERE
AN INEVITABLE
CONFLICT OF
INTEREST WHEN
CIVIL SERVANTS
ARE THE
MAIN JUDGES
IN ASSESSING
WHETHER OTHER
CIVIL SERVANTS
RECEIVE HONOURS?
I fail to see how such a conflict could not
arise.
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 would prefer that the existing Orders have
their remit widened to include a greater range of people, as commented
earlier. This would seem to be a more sensible method of having
state servants compete on similar terms to everybody else. The
abolition of an Order which has been in existence for centuries
is a serious matter and should not be undertaken lightly.
25. IS THE
GENERAL PUBLIC
AWARE OF
THE HONOURS
SYSTEM AND
THE PART
THEY COULD
PLAY IN
IT THROUGH
NOMINATIONS?
26. HOW SHOULD
AWARENESS OF
THE SYSTEM
BE RAISED?
My perception is that the general public is
mostly unaware of the details of the honours system and the nomination
procedures involved. It may be possible to facilitate greater
participation by writing to local organisations (charities, hospitals,
schools, universities, and so forth) reminding them that honours
exist to reward those who have served in many walks of life, and
encouraging them to nominate those they feel deserve recognition.
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?
My feeling is that there should be greater openness
about the procedures involved in compilation of the various honours
lists, but that it is also appropriate that the identities of
those who decline such an award should be kept secret unless the
people in question choose to make such information (and, perhaps,
their reasons) public.
32. WHAT ROLE,
IF ANY,
SHOULD PARLIAMENT,
THE SCOTTISH
PARLIAMENT AND
THE NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY FOR
WALES PLAY
IN THE
HONOURS SYSTEM?
I would like to see the honours system rendered
as apolitical as possible, and thus I believe that Parliament,
the Scottish Parliament, and the National Assembly for Wales should
have as much say in the composition of the honours lists as (but
probably no more than) any other major public body. It seems entirely
reasonable that long-serving, hard-working MPs, MSPs, or AMs should
be recognised for their service, but such awards should not be
automatic, or solely dependent on the favour of the Prime Minister
of the day.
In closing, I offer a summary of my main points.
I believe that there is still a need for a national honours system
in the UK, and that such a system should be broadly similar to
the one we have at present. I do, however, think that some reform
is necessary if the system is to remain relevant to modern society.
My feeling is that there should be more (rather than fewer) awards
than are currently made, and that the remit of the Orders of the
Bath and of Saint Michael and Saint George should be widened to
include a greater section of the population than at present.
There is, perhaps, a case for replacing the
Order of the British Empire with a more appropriately-titled award,
but the name of this hypothetical Order should be chosen with
care. The nomination procedure should be made more transparent
and accountable, political involvement should be lessened, and
the general public should be encouraged to participate more fully
in the process—otherwise it will remain largely irrelevant
to society in general
References:
1. Public Administration Select Committee
The Honours System: An Issues and Questions Paper November 2003.
2. http://www.bookerprize.co.uk/aboutprize/previous.html
April 2004
| 
