Honours and peerages: a comparison
35. In most respects, the systems for allocating
honours and peerages are very different. This is entirely appropriatean
honour is a reflection of past achievement, whereas a peerage
ought to be an appointment for future service. The fact that most
working peers are chosen by political parties may not be widely
understood, but it is central to the workings of a nominated House
that parties are involved in the selection of legislators who
serve as representatives of the parties.
36. However, some similarities between the two processes
are harder to justify. One example of similarity is that citations
are not published, whether they are for honours or for peerages.
Our predecessor Committee called for the publication of citations
for honours in 2004, in the interests of transparencya
call which the Government rejected:
The Government does not accept this recommendation.
It is one of the central tenets of the system that the person
being considered for an award should not be approached before
a decision to offer it is made. Publication of the long citation
would need clearance by the recipient; the finalisation of the
list is simply too compressed a process to allow this to be completed.
Publication of the information without the consentor the
inputof the individual concerned would be unwise since
people are likely to have views on such personal information being
made public. Consent could be obtained in the period after the
list has been published but the obvious time for publication is
when the award is announced, not several months after.[35]
37. Even if these arguments are accepted for honours,
we do not believe they are valid for peerages. A peerage is not
a prize; and nominees should not be surprised by the award. Nor
is there any need for the same time pressures that apply to devising
an honours list. As peers, successful applicants will be public
figures with visible responsibilities. It does not seem inappropriate
that the public should be informed why parties are putting forward
certain individuals to carry out those responsibilities, nor that
candidates should have their credentials discussed in public before
their seat in the legislature is secured.
38. A further similarity between the processes for
allocating honours and peerages is that they are both governed
by the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. The adequacy of
this Act specifically in relation to preventing the sale of peerages
is discussed at Chapter 4.
Conclusions
39. A peerage is more than an honour. An honour
is a reflection of past achievement, whereas a peerage ought to
be an appointment for future service. The procedures for appointing
peers have grown organically out of the procedures for allocating
honours, but it is time that a clean break was made. There is
no reason for any surviving overlap between the two processes.
40. The honours system itself is much improved
in its independence since our predecessors' report in 2004. Some
of this results from the new processes recommended by Sir Hayden
Phillips' review, but the more important development may be the
last Prime Minister's commitment not to put his own names forward,
a commitment maintained by the current Prime Minister. It is our
view that this commitment should be binding on all future Prime
Ministers.
41. We have nothing further to add to the recommendations
on changes to the honours system in our interim report. The Government
understandably awaited this report before responding, but we expect
a response to those recommendations now.
24 The exceptions to this are the "resignation"
and "dissolution" lists, explained at paragraph 25. Back
25
Public Administration Select Committee, Fifth Report of Session
2003-04, A Matter of Honour: Reforming the Honours System,
HC 212 Back
26
Cabinet Office, Review of the Honours System, July 2004 Back
27
HC Deb, 4 March 1993, col 455 Back
28
http://www.honours.gov.uk/nominate/ Back
29
Public Administration Select Committee, Fifth Report of Session
2003-04, A Matter of Honour: Reforming the Honours System,
HC 212, para 173 Back
30
HC Deb, 23 March 2006, col 34WS Back
31
Public Administration Select Committee, Fifth Report of Session
2003-04, A Matter of Honour: Reforming the Honours System,
HC 212, paras 168-173 Back
32
Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm 7170,
July 2007, para 85 Back
33
Q 179 Back
34
http://www.lordsappointments.gov.uk/vetting.aspx Back
35
Cabinet Office, Reform of the Honours System, Cm 6479,
February 2005, p 8 Back