Memorandum by Francis Bennion (HON 96)
1. In my submission a statement should be
produced setting out the future scope and objects of the British
state honours system in a society where deference no longer obtains.
This should say that in the future state honours will be awarded
only for acts by citizens which demonstrate quite exceptional
heroism, fortitude or other outstanding qualities. State honours
should no longer be awarded merely for long service in a particular
office or occupation. Nor should they be awarded because the person
has engaged in voluntary unpaid charitable or other service. Such
work ought not to be done in the hope of gaining an honour, which
is an unworthy and demeaning motive likely to distort behaviour
in socially undesirable ways, for example by encouraging kow-towing
and inhibiting the utterance of proper criticism.
2. No state honour should in future be conferred
which involves a title such as Lord, Baroness, Dame or Sir. As
in France, use of such titles by past holders should be permitted
at individual discretion, though not recognised officially (as
in invitations to state banquets). Such titles are not generally
bestowed in other developed countries and encourage the sentiment
that Britain is old-fashioned and even faintly absurd.
3. I would not venture to suggest any change
in the honours awarded by H.M. The Queen personally.
4. I hope I may be forgiven for presenting
my remaining evidence by reproducing Blogs published on my Blogsite.
TUESDAY 2 DECEMBER
2003: THE BRITISH
HONOURS SYSTEM
5. A man whom I shall not name[24]
has insulted Her Britannic Majesty. She offered to honour him
by admitting him to the Most Honourable Order of the British Empire
with an award of the OBE. He rejected the honour with contumely,
saying mention of the British Empire reminded him of slavery.
(He might remember that slavery still flourishes in the part of
Africa with which he is associated.)
6. Why do we British cling to our absurd
honours system? The London Times reported on 25 November 2003
that supporters of the system argue it rewards talented and ambitious
civil servants who would otherwise have to be paid much more to
prevent them defecting to the private sector. As I said in a letter
the Times published on 29 November 2003, this suggests that for
those civil servants the prospect of an honour from the Queen
is in effect a bribe which is practicably quantifiable in monetary
terms. I pointed out that in a leading article (same day) the
Times carried this wider, saying an important motivation for many
good deeds is a hoped-for award of honours.
7. I added that, in order not to prejudice
a prospective honour, many people feel obliged to tailor their
conduct accordingly—as J. B. Priestley brilliantly showed
in his play An Inspector Calls. I suggested that this appeal to
vanity is an unhealthy feature of British society, since its effect
is to bolster foolish pride and restrict people's freedom of action.
TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER
2003: MORE ON
THE GONG
SHOW
8. I suggested in an earlier Blog that there
is a great deal wrong with the British honours system. Now more
evidence has come to light against what the London Sunday Times
for 14 December 2003 calls the Gong Show. A Whitehall whistleblower
has leaked a secret Cabinet Office document showing that the whole
system is run by a committee of seven top civil servants, with
one outsider from the private sector.
9. This small committee decide who gets
what. Their conclusions are sent to the Prime Minister (who may
or may not tinker with them a little). Then they are passed for
information only to Her Majesty the Queen. Constitutionally, gongs
are supposed to be bestowed by Her Majesty, who is our country's
Fount of Honour. In fact, apart from the few which are within
her gift, she has no say in the matter.
10. The whistleblower says that the recent
award of a knighthood to the ageing rocker Mick Jagger (of `I
Can't Get No Satisfaction' fame) was given to make Prime Minister
Blair look cool. People are not put on the list if their political
stance is anti-Labour.
11. There is of course nothing new about
all this. I recall G K Chesterton's summing-up in A Ballade of
an Anti-Puritan-
Prince, Bayard would have smashed his sword
To see the sort of knights you dub-
Is that the last of them—O Lord!
Will someone take me to a pub?
Saturday 20 December 2003: Gong Show Part 3
12. Honours for leading scientists involved
in animal experiments and GM crop research are said to have been
blocked by H.R.H. The Prince of Wales. Following my two previous
blogs on the honours system I am now reporting a further item
in the London Times (18 December 2003). This says that Colin Blakemore,
distinguished Professor of Physiology at my own alma mater Oxford
University, has been refused a knighthood because of opposition
from Prince Charles (who denied the allegation and declined to
comment). It is also reported that H.R.H. objected to Professor
Blakemore's presence at the launch of a schizophrenia research
centre funded by the charity SANE.
13. The item adds that a second eminent
scientist, Professor Derek Burke, has also been passed over for
honours because of the Prince's objections. The professor has
been one of the strongest critics of Charles's opposition to genetically
modified crops.
14. The Daily Mail (same day) reports that
Professor Blakemore is very angry about being excluded from the
honours list. He says-
15. `On the one hand, the Government specifically
encourages scientists to engage in controversial issues. But in
private, you are regarded as a pariah, marked down as unsavoury
and your reputation is diminished. To suffer 15 years of terrorism,
as I have, because you are one of the few prepared to stand up
for what Government promotes, and then learn that this Government
shuns you for doing so is deeply demoralising.'
16. Ironically Colin Blakemore is a long-standing
Labour Party member (perhaps he should change his allegiance).
He has endured parcel-bomb attacks and death threats from animal
rights extremists, and been warned by them that his name is on
their murder list. So much for the rule of law.
17. This Blog is already too long, but I
can't resist adding some comments made by readers in yesterday's
Times. Dr John Rae says there's no reason other than social climbing
why life peers and knights should not be content with letters
after their name. Professor Christopher Clapham thinks the honours
mole I mentioned is so disgusted with Government duplicity that
he is prepared to run great personal risk in order to reveal it.
Finally Dr Michael White wryly says that `whoever blew the whistle
on our obnoxious honours system should be given a medal'.
TUESDAY 30 DECEMBER
2003: GONG SHOW
PART 4
18. The great interest currently being shown
in the honours system encourages me to place on record, in case
it is of use in reforming the system, three instances where I
have had direct experience of its workings.
19. In 1951 I entered what was then called
the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to His Majesty's Treasury,
where Government Parliamentary Bills are drafted. It is the custom
to make the Head of the Office, the first Parliamentary Counsel,
a Knight Commander of the Bath (KCB). `Keep your nose clean' said
Frank Heritage `and you will in due course become First Parliamentary
Counsel'. It was my first day in the Office. Frank, the chief
clerk, did some hasty calculations and told me that the magic
year would probably be 1979. I kept my nose clean, but resigned
long before the crucial date and went on to do other things.
20. No honour has come my way from all that.
21. For two years (1959-61) I was seconded
by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to help Ghana become a republic
and draft its new constitution. At the end of that time I was
officially informed by the Ghana Attorney General, a former Westminster
Labour MP named Geoffrey Bing QC, that I had been recommended
to Whitehall by Dr Nkrumah the President for the award of an OBE.
22. No honour has come my way from all that.
23. The first time I resigned from the Office
of Parliamentary Counsel (I am the only person who has resigned
twice from that Office, having been invited back in 1973) it was
to take up an appointment as Chief Executive (then called Secretary)
of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), where
my predecessor Sir Alexander Killick DSO MC had been knighted
for his services. Like similar professional bodies, the RICS was
required to have a secret committee which recommended honours
to be awarded by the Monarch to chartered surveyors. I served
as its secretary, and recall earnest discussions about who deserved
what and when. This sometimes involved manipulation. For example
it was early decided that the knighthood expected for the President
in 1968, the year of the Institution's centenary, should go to
Oliver Chesterton MC, a distinguished relative of the writer G
K Chesterton. The RICS had three Vice Presidents, who then (usually)
went on in turn to be President for a year. It took some manoeuvring
to insert Chesterton in the desired order.
24. No honour has come my way from all that.
25. One thing is clear about the honours
system. If you stay in the same job all your life you may get
an MBE for services to say the Stretchford Fine Arts and Tramways
Committee. If you move around and sit on many stools (as I must
confess I myself have done) you will fall between all of them.
MONDAY 5 JANUARY
2004: GONG SHOW
PART 5
26. My final word on the Honours system
is contained in a letter from me published in today's London Times
Debate:
27. `We should not try to reform what is
a rotten system. Instead we should abolish it.
28. `[The honours system is rotten for the
following reasons.] It caters to, and inflates, human vanity.
It is used to obtain the services of civil servants, members of
the Armed Forces and other state employees on the cheap, paying
them less than they could get in the private sector. It degrades
the Queen, who nominally [(but not really, except for a few)],
awards the honours. It encourages a debased political system,
where honours are awarded to pay off party hacks and party donors.
It cheapens charity, encouraging people to do charitable work
in the expectation of being honoured rather than for true philanthropic
motives. [It distorts the behaviour of those who hope for honours,
making them kow-tow and `keep their noses clean'.]
29. `Instead of bestowing titles and letters
after one's name (to be used only for swank), we should borrow
from a military tradition which does neither: mention in despatches.
Let those who act beyond the call of duty be officially mentioned
in the nation's despatches. That would be honour enough.'
30. The Times left out the bits in square
brackets.
May 2004
24 Benjamin Zephaniah. Back
| 
