PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE
THE HONOURS SYSTEM: AN ISSUES AND QUESTIONS PAPER
The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) has decided that, as part of its inquiry into Ministerial Powers and the Prerogative, it will take further evidence on the honours system with a view to producing recommendations for reform. This paper summarises some of the main issues and seeks public views on them.
The Committee has already taken some evidence on the honours system during the Ministerial Powers inquiry, but has been prompted to take this further step by the disclosure of papers produced after a major Government review of the system which took place in 2000 and 2001. The conclusions of that investigation, known as “the Wilson Review” after Lord Wilson of Dinton, the then Cabinet Secretary, indicated that at that time there was an acceptancein Government circles that several aspects of the current system were hard to justify. The Review also suggested that the Government was beginning to contemplate a number of changes to the operation of the system.
The Honours Machinery
Some 3000 honours are awarded annually, at New Year and on the Queen’s Official Birthday. A small number of awards (such as those in the Orders of the Garter and the Thistle) are thepersonal gift of the Queen. The Prime Minister’s list, with 1,000 names on each occasion, provides the largest part of the overall total. The Diplomatic Service and Overseas list is submitted by the Foreign Secretary and contains about 150 names. The Defence Services list is submitted by the Secretary of State for Defence and has some 200 names. There have been a number of reforms to the system over the years, the last extensive one in 1993, when, among other things, the then Prime Minister John Major initiated changes to make it easier for the general public to nominate candidates for honours, and sought to increase the number of those honoured for voluntary work. Since the current Government was elected in 1997, there has been a rise in the number of women and people from the ethnic minorities who have featured in the lists.
Central to the machinery for the Prime Minister’s list are a number of Honours Selection sub-Committees: Agriculture, Commerce and Industry, Maecenas[1], Media, Medicine, Local Services, Science and Technology, Sport, and State Services (or Small).They examine the merits of all candidates for the honours round sifted from the nominations considered by Departments.From these the Committees select (or endorse) those for recommendation to the Prime Minister.
The selections are referred to the Main Honours Committee which is made up of the Chairmen of the sub-Committees and one or two others. As the Wilson Review summarises it: “The Main Committee reviews the work of the sub-Committees, reassesses any sensitive or controversial recommendations or omissions and seeks to ensure that the balance between the various sectors is satisfactory”. The Chairman of the Main Committee submits a list to the Prime Minister along with a personal report. The Prime Minister subsequently makes his own recommendations to the Queen. As the Wilson Review makes clear “The Prime Minister is not bound by the recommendations he receives; ultimately it remains his List”. The deliberations of these Committees have until very recently been confidential, as have the papers that resulted from the “Wilson Review”. However, Sir Hayden Phillips, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Constitutional Affairs, helpfully agreed to the Committee’s publication of the Review papers in the autumn of 2003. Separately, recent leaks to newspapers of Honours committee discussions have cast new light on the methods by which recommendations are produced.
Nominations
The three lists are composed partly of names generated by Government departments themselves through their networks of public bodies and other contacts,and partly of those who have been nominated directly bythe public. The present public nomination system dates from 1993, when thereview by the MajorGovernment concluded that “the means of nomination for honours shouldbe more widelyknown and more open”. There is a standard nomination form, setting out the type of information which is required to assess candidates.
An average of 6,000 to 7,000new nominations come in annually. The last decade has seen a substantial but not entirely consistent rise in the proportion of directly nominated candidates (said to have “ public support”)from 37 percent in the New Year Honours 1995 to 51 percent in the Birthday Honours 2003.
Mapping the Honours System
The table below, reproduced from the Wilson Review, explains the categories of honour
which are available (Orders marked * are in The Queen’s personal gift):
Order / Levels and Postnominals / NotesMost Noble Order of the Garter* / KG/LG(Knight/Lady) / Founded in 1348. Restricted to senior members of the Royal family and 24 others. Restored to gift of the Sovereign by Attlee in 1946
Most Ancient and most
Noble Order of the Thistle* / KT/LT (Knight/Lady) / Revived 1687: Scottish equivalent of the Garter. Restricted to 16 members. Restored to gift of the Sovereign by Attlee in 1947.
Most Honourable Order of
the Bath / GCB (Knight/Dame G rand Cross)
KCB/DCB(Knight/Dame Commander)
CB(Companion) / Revived 1725. Military and Civil Divisions. Upper limits: 120, 365 and 1,975 for the 3 levels. Career civil servants’ order.
Order of Merit* / OM / Founded in 1902. Restricted to 24 members. In the gift of the Sovereign for “savants and soldiers”: distinction in military service, literature, science or art.
Most Distinguished Order
of St Michael and St George / GCMG(Knight/Dame Grand Cross
KCMG/DCMG(Knight/Dame Commander)
CMG (Companion) / Established in 1818. Diplomatic Service’s order. Upper limits: 125, 360 and 1,750 for the 3 levels.
Royal Victorian Order* / GCVO(Knight/Dame Grand Cross)
KCVO/DCVO(Knight/Dame Commander)
CVO(Commander)
LVO(Lieutenant)
MVO(Member) / Instituted 1896. In the gift of the Sovereign. Royal Household’s order.
Most Excellent Order of the British Empire / GBE(Knight/Dame Grand Cross)
KBE/DBE(Knight/Dame Commander)
CBE(Commander)
OBE(Officer)
MBE(Member) / Founded 1917. “In recognition of the manifold services, voluntary and otherwise, rendered in connection with the war.” Most widely conferred order. Upper limits for top 3 levels: 100, 885 and 10,000.
Knights Bachelor / Sir / Do not comprise an order of chivalry, merely a status. 1908 the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor formed.
The Order of the Companion
of Honour / CH / Founded 1917. Restricted to 65 members. For service of conspicuous national importance.
MAIN ISSUES AND QUESTIONS—HOW TO RESPOND
This section sets out the Committee’s main areas of interest in the honours system. It seeks views on a number of questions which the Committee regards as central to the future of the system. It is, however, by no means exhaustive, and the Committee would welcome comments on any aspect of policy on the honours system. PASC would like to receive responses to any or all of the questions in this paper. Although some of the questions could theoretically be answered by a simple yes or no, the Committee would especially value extended memoranda with background evidence where appropriate. The Committee regrets that it cannot reopen or question individual decisions about the award of honours. The papers which resulted from the Wilson Review, which contain much more detail and analysis about the operation of the system, can be found on the Committee’s website at:
SOME RESPONDENTS MAY WISH TO CONCENTRATE ON THOSE ISSUES IN WHICH THEY HAVE A SPECIAL INTEREST, RATHER THAN NECESSARILY ANSWERING ALL THE QUESTIONS
Memoranda will usually be treated as evidence to the Committee and may be published as part of a final Report. Memoranda submitted to the Committee should be kept confidential unless and until published by the Committee. If you object to your memorandum being made public in a volume of evidence, please make this clear when it is submitted.
Memoranda should be submitted by 2 April as hard copy on A4 paper, but please send an electronic version also, on computer disk in Word, Rich Text Format, ASCII or WordPerfect 8 or email to Hard copies should be sent to Philip Aylett, Clerk, Public Administration Select Committee, Committee Office, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA
THE POSSIBILITY OF RADICAL CHANGE AND OTHER GENERAL ISSUES
The Committee seeks views, firstly, on the possibility of fundamental changes to honours policy. The most radical approach would, of course, be the complete abolition of national honours. It might be argued in support of this proposition 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 voluntary effort.
On the other hand, the fact that almost every countryretains some form of national honours system suggests that such systems do fulfill a useful role. During the recent intense controversy over honours, there was very little support for complete abolition.
The Committee would also welcome views on a number of broad issues, such as the role of the Prime Minister in the system and the merits or otherwise of a drastic reduction in the number of new honours awarded each year. It would also welcome views on the place of the peerage in the light of the current state of the reform process in the House of Lords.
QUESTIONS
1.Does the United Kingdom need an honours system at all? Do we need as many honours as we have now (3000 per year)? Could we make do with, say, 10 or 100 new honours each year?
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?
3.In relation to the machinery of the honours system, what lessons may be learned from the experience of other countries?
WHAT ARE HONOURS FOR? THE MERIT ISSUE
The Committee seeks views on the objectives of the honours system, and on howthe merits of candidates for honours should be assessed. Should they be awarded primarily for distinction in particular fields, for committed public service, or to celebrate the nation’s values? In this context, the Wilson Review contrasts the high honours awarded to those who are successful in business or the professions with the more modest recognition often given to those who have contributed “a lifetime of selflessness, charity, humility and service to others”.
The reforms of 1993 increased the proportion of awards made to volunteers, and it is possible to argue that this principle should be take further, perhaps even to the extent of confining honours to those who serve in a voluntary capacity.The Committee also seeks comments on questions concerning the place of “peer review” and professional reputation in the honours system. For instance, to what extent should the judgement of professional and other bodies be used to assess merit?
QUESTIONS
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?
5.Can any honours system realistically reflect all of the above?
6.Are the criteria for awards well enough known and properly understood?
7.Is the award of honours bound to be subjective—“an art rather than a science” as the Wilson Review puts it?
8.What role should be played in the honours system by peer groups, professional, business and trade union bodies and academic institutions? Should they be asked to provide, monitor and keep up to date the criteria used in recommending candidates for honours?
9.Would there be any advantage in applying to honours selection some of the merit criteria now applied in appointments to public bodies?
10.What would be the advantages and disadvantages of restricting honours to those who do voluntary work, either full-time or part-time?
HONOURS AND SOCIAL DIVISIONS
Some critics have attacked the honours system for allegedly exacerbating a number of social divisions, partly because it is divided into five levels. The Wilson Review recalls the memorable remark from the late singer Dusty Springfield after being told she was to be given an OBE: “Isn’t that what they give to cleaners?”.Titles are also the subject of some controversy. According to the Wilson Review, Britainappears to be the only country in the world where the titles “Sir” and “Dame” are used.
The record on minority ethnic representation has also been criticised, although the picture has improved in the last decade. In recent years the proportion of black and minority ethnic people receiving honours has increased from just 2.5 percent of the total in 1997 to 6.8 percent in 2003. However, progress at the “higher” level of honours (CBE and above) has been mixed. In the Birthday honours on 2001, as many as 5.2 percent of the awards at CBE and above went to black and minority ethnic people, but the figure at New Year 2003 was down to 1.9 percent. The word “Empire” has been seen as anachronistic.
The Wilson Review concluded that the committees which produce recommendations for honours were “a predominantly white, male, elderly elite”with, at that time, only 15 percent female membership and only four percent (2 out of 54 members) from an ethnic minority.The percentage of women on the committees was slightly higher by the end of 2004, with 12 out of 58 members, or just over 20 percent, but there were still only two members from an ethnic minority. The Committee has previously made a number of recommendations aimed at increasing the diversity of the membership of public bodies, and it will be considering whether there are practical ways to achieve the same goal in the honours system.
QUESTIONS.
11.The Wilson Review proposes that “in the interests of equity there should be equal access to honours for all UK citizens”.How could this be best achieved?
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? Should titles such as “Dame” and “Sir”,“Lord”, “Lady”, “Baron” etc be abolished?
13.Is it appropriate that Privy Counsellors should continue to be given the prefix “Right Honourable”?
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?
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?
PUBLIC SERVANTS AND HONOURS
The Committee has a particular interest in the effect of the honours system on public servants, and on public administration. The Wilson Review reveals that the honours system seems to favour certain categories of “state servants”—home civil servants, diplomats and members of the armed forces—over other people, including public sector workers in the front line of other vital services. For example, the Wilson Review calculated that while one in 15,500 teachers and one in 20,000 nurses received an award, the equivalent figure for diplomats was one in 123 and for members of the armed forces one in 1090. Civil servants form a high proportion of the members of the honours committees. As a class, civil servants have a relatively good chance of receiving an honour—the Wilson Review put it at one in 3125 home civil servants. This imbalance is partly created by the existence of two orders—that of theBath and that of Saints Michael and George—which are exclusively for state servants. The Committee would welcome views on the likely effects of this imbalance on public life, and on the suggestion in the Wilson Review that the two “state servant” orders should be subsumed into the general Order of the British Empire, making such people compete on the same terms as everybody else.
QUESTIONS
16.What are the effects, if any, of the honours system on public administration in the UK? Is it a motivating or a demotivating force?
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?
18.Is it possible to break the apparently inevitable link between social/employment status and the class of honour received?
19.Is there an inevitable conflict of interest when civil servants are the main judges in assessing whether other civil servants receive honours?
20.Should there be an increase in the number of independent outsiders who sit on the honours committees? Should the committees be made 100 percent independent, perhaps by banning all members of such committees from ever receiving an honour?