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 1
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’.
