1 The Honours System:
Further Report
1. We reported to the House on The Honours System
in our Second Report of Session 2010-12, published on 29 August
2012 as HC 19. We received the Government Response to that Report
on 29 October 2012. That Response is printed as an appendix to
this Report.
2. In
our Report we set out the reforms we considered necessary to increase
public confidence
that honours are awarded to the most deserving recipients and
that the honours system is open and fair to all. We argued that
it should be easier to understand why and how honours are awarded,
and that there should be no political influence on this process.
We recommended the introduction of an Independent Honours Commission
to select recipients for awards, and an Independent Forfeiture
Committee to consider cases in which honours should be revoked.
We called for clear and expanded criteria for both the award and
forfeiture of honours, and recommended that no honour should be
awarded simply for "doing the day job".[1]
3. We are disappointed with the Government's Response
to our Report. In particular, we are worried by the Government's
statement that concerns about the award and forfeiture of honours
"largely arise from misperceptions rather than reality".[2]
We remain of the position that "it
is a serious concern that many members of the public do not view
the honours system as open or fair", as revealed by the Cabinet
Office's own polling on this matter.[3]
In dismissing these concerns the Government has neither addressed
the basis for these concerns nor sought to justify the political
influence over the honours system and the lack of transparency
in the award of honours. In addition, none of our independent
witnesses would accept the Government's statement
that "It is a long time since honours have been awarded to
those who "just do their job"". If the Government
believes that certain positions and responsibilities intrinsically
merit the award of honours, it would be much more straightforward
to say that.[4]
4. The Government's Response rejected our recommendation
of an Independent Honours Commission, free from political influence,
and argued that reforms to the honours system "introduced
in 2005 have already introduced all the benefits of independence
that would be created by the establishment of a Commission, making
it hard to justify the additional costs that would be involved".[5]
We do not find this argument convincing. Since the publication
of our Report, we have received numerous letters from the public
expressing concerns about the honours system, reinforcing our
original conclusion that the benefits from the Government's 2005
reforms have been "marginal".[6]
5. Our Report also expressed concerns about the establishment
of the Parliamentary
and Political Service Honours Committee. We
were informed about its establishment by a letter from the Prime
Minister in March 2012, and understood that the Committee was
established to consider
candidates for honours from the Members and staff of the Westminster
Parliament and devolved legislatures, and "the staff of bodies
which report to them, such as the National Audit Office, and the
Ombudsman, and Party workers".[7]
We expressed our concern at the rushed presidential manner in
which this new Committee had been established, apparently without
any evidence of a need for it. We recommended that the membership
of the Committee be elected by MPs and that it should not include
the Chief Whips of the three main parties.[8]
6. We reject the Government's assertion that consultation
of the Chief Whips of the three main parties regarding the Prime
Minister's intentions to establish this new Committee amounts
to consultation of Parliament, and remain of the view that the
membership of the Chief Whips of the three main parties on the
Parliamentary and Political Service Honours Committee opens the
Committee to the charge of political manipulation in the interest
of party leaders. The credibility of such a consultation is not
assisted by the fact that the three consultees were subsequently
appointed to the Committee in question. In view of this, for the
Government to argue that the election of members of the Parliamentary
and Political Service Honours Committee by MPs would constitute
politicisation is absurd. The Government's unwarranted dismissal
of our recommendations in respect of this new Honours Committee
further undermines our confidence that the Committee should have
been established at all.
7. Subsequent to the publication of our Report we
were surprised by the Prime Minister's decision to bypass the
Committee he had so recently established in order to award honours
to five ministers who had lost their jobs in the Government's
September 2012 reshuffle (correspondence between the Prime Minister
and PASC on this matter is at appendix 2). Such a move does indeed
constitute politicisation of the honours system and flies in the
face of the stated position of the Government, as expressed only
weeks earlier in oral evidence by Sir Bob Kerslake, the Head of
the Civil Service. Without questioning the public service of those
selected, by the Prime Minister, to receive honours at the end
of their ministerial career, we are concerned that awarding honours
in such a manner will further reduce public confidence in the
honours system. Again, if the Government supports such political
control of the award of honours in certain circumstances, it should
be prepared to justify that.
8. Since the publication of our Report, there have
been numerous calls for the forfeiture of the honours awarded
to various public figures. We believe that this pressure results
from the Government's decision to ask the Honours Forfeiture Committee
to consider the case of Fred Goodwin, the former Chief Executive
of Royal Bank of Scotland, and the subsequent recommendation of
that Committee that Mr Goodwin's knighthood should be cancelled
and annulled. Despite the Government's insistence that Mr Goodwin
was an exceptional case, it appears that media attention may have
become a factor in determining whether the Honours Forfeiture
Committee considers an individual's case. We believe the acceptance
of our recommendation for an independent Honours Forfeiture Committee
would increase transparency to the forfeiture process, and restore
credibility to the honours system.
1 Public Administration Select Committee, Second Report
of Session 2012-13, The Honours System, HC 19, paras 39,
68, 106, 117, 118, 119 Back
2
Appendix 1 Back
3
Public Administration Select Committee, The Honours System,
para 20 Back
4
Appendix 1, Public Administration Select Committee, The Honours
System, para 36 Back
5
Appendix 1 Back
6
Public Administration Select Committee, The Honours System,
para 68 Back
7
Ibid. para 87 Back
8
Ibid. paras 84, 88 Back
|
