HL Deb 04 March 1993 vol 543 cc751-61

3.37 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Honours. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Honours system and to announce some changes which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen.

"The award of Honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. It is the means by which, as a nation, we can show our respect and gratitude to those who have contributed most to our national life. Acts of courage, lives of sacrifice, inventiveness, generosity and commitment to others are formally recognised and acknowledged. It is rooted in our history and given special value by the close personal attention which the Sovereign has given to it. To retain its valued role in our national life, the Honours system must—from time to time —be reviewed and renewed.

"The present system has remained largely unchanged for 70 years despite huge changes in national life. I have therefore been discussing with Her Majesty some changes that will, I believe, enjoy widespread support.

"I wish to start by clarifying the circumstances in which awards should be made. First, Honours should be awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above what normally might be expected. Secondly, there should be different levels of award to reflect different levels of achievement. Thirdly, awards should not be automatic and follow simply as a result of doing a particular job. Fourthly, awards should place more emphasis on voluntary service. I therefore propose to end the recommendation of Honours where they are given solely by seniority or on appointment. In future, with one exception I shall turn to in a moment, there should be no assumption that Honours will automatically be attached to particular posts in either the public or the private sector.

"Public servants and office holders will of course still be eligible to receive honours and many will qualify on merit. But the assumption that a particular post automatically carries an Honour will end. Instead, awards will be open—on merit —to a wider range of individuals.

"I intend that these principles should be applied throughout the Civil Service and the rest of the public sector, and my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence concur in respect of the Foreign Service and the Armed Forces.

"I also intend the same principles to apply in the private sector. Many people give generously of their time, energy and expertise to help their fellow citizens, and a more flexible system can take greater account of such contributions. While heads of particular organisations can no longer expect an Honour just because their predecessor received one, they will of course continue to be eligible if their achievement and their service to the community merit this. I propose to continue making recommendations for political service and I shall apply the same principles there too.

"I mentioned earlier one exception. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to our legal system. Awards of honours should not be thought to depend upon the Government's approval of legal judgments. For that reason I believe that High Court judges should continue to receive the traditional honour of a Knighthood on appointment. This practice has preserved the independence of the Bench from the exercise of patronage for two centuries and I believe it should continue.

"I should like now to turn to specific awards where I have some changes to announce. The largest proportion by far of current awards are MBEs and BEMs, mainly for service to local communities. The distinction between service meriting the award of an MBE and that meriting a BEM has become increasingly tenuous. It cannot be sustained. I therefore intend in future to increase the number of recommendations for MBEs and to discontinue recommending awards of BEMs. I should make it clear that this change will not affect existing holders of the BEM, who will of course retain their medals. These are rightly highly treasured personal possessions.

"The change will also apply to the lists recommended by my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. The Governments of those Commonwealth countries which recommend British Empire Medals in their own lists have been informed of these proposals.

"To end a similar distinction in the Imperial Service Order I shall no longer make recommendations for awards of the ISO. Those considered to merit the award will instead receive OBEs. The associated Imperial Service Medal is a long service medal awarded on retirement and will continue.

"At present those receiving the BEM do not attend a Royal Investiture. For the future, the Queen has graciously agreed to increase the number of Investitures both at Buckingham Palace and elsewhere in the country. This will enable the increased numbers receiving MBEs to attend a Royal Investiture, though the Queen will not be able to conduct all Investitures herself. I realise, however, that some may value a local presentation which gives greater opportunity for friends and family to mark the occasion. Her Majesty has, therefore, agreed that those awarded MBEs, OBEs or CBEs may receive their Honour from their Lord Lieutenant if they prefer. The choice will rest entirely with the recipient.

"I turn now to military gallantry awards. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence is separately conducting a review, and will be announcing his conclusions shortly. But there is one change I can announce today.

"At present, except for the Victoria Cross, awards for gallantry are linked to the rank of the recipient. Officers are eligible to receive crosses or equivalent decorations but non-commissioned ranks are eligible only for medals. The time has come to end this distinction. In future, the level of award will be determined by the part played by the individuals concerned and the courage they displayed, without regard to their rank.

"At present the numbers and distribution of Honours are reviewed every five years. However, I have requested that the next examination of these numbers be brought forward to the summer of this year. I have asked the review: first, to take greater account of the desirability of recognising work in the voluntary sector and service to the community; and, secondly, to look at the proportion of awards to state servants to ensure that it appropriately reflects changes in the role and size of the Home Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service and the Armed Forces.

"Finally, I believe the means of nomination for Honours should be more widely known and more open. It is at present too haphazard. Nomination forms, setting out the type of information needed, have therefore been prepared. I shall make sure that the forms are readily available both to members of the public and particularly to voluntary bodies and charities. I will also place a supply in the Vote Office for honourable Members. I hope that this change will help increase the recognition of merit of all kinds.

"The Honours system has been with us for centuries and has a continuing and valued role to play in British life. I strongly support it. But it is right that it should periodically be examined. The changes I have announced today mean: that exceptional service or achievement will be more widely recognised; that greater importance will be given to voluntary service; that automatic Honours will end; that the distinction between ranks in military operational gallantry awards will cease; that the bulk of Honours in the half-yearly lists will be of a single, undifferentiated award, the MBE; and that all recipients of Honours will be invited to a Royal Investiture.

"I shall report to the House in due course on the review of the numbers and distribution of Honours and I shall consider at that time whether further changes are needed".

My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.

3.46 p.m.

Lord Richard

My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this long overdue overhaul of the Honours system. We have long argued that the whole system of awarding honours is—to use as neutral a phrase as I can think of this afternoon—dubious. We certainly welcome the abolition of false distinctions between classes of Honours such as the BEM and the MBE which have themselves served to perpetuate false distinctions between citizens. We particularly welcome the abolition of distinctions between military medals. It is obvious to all that bravery has no rank and that there should be no such distinction when it comes to the recognition of gallantry.

The efforts of ordinary citizens to improve the lives of their fellow citizens will, I hope, be properly recognised under the new Honours system. The recognition of people valued in their own localities will help to lead to a new sense of community. I welcome too that part of the Statement which extends and widens the categories of people who are entitled to nominate others for Honours. I think that that change is desirable and we welcome it.

It is a pity, in our view, that the Statement has been marred merely by one sentence which the noble Lord the Leader of the House will find on page 6: I propose to continue making recommendations for political service and I shall apply the same principles there too". I assume that the principles to be applied are those set out at the beginning of the Statement that: honours should be awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above what normally might be expected". The habit has grown up over recent years of awarding political Honours to members of the Conservative Party for political services. We on this side of the House think that that is regrettable. I should be interested to know what, exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above what normally might be expected", of members of the Conservative Party will have to be provided before someone receives the regulation "K". I hope that it will not be something of which there has been criticism in the past—merely the size of the contribution to Conservative Party funds.

Subject to that one sentence, which does not seem to us to fit in with the tone of the rest of the Statement, broadly, overall we welcome this.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, there are several aspects to the Statement which we welcome. That certainly goes for the amalgamation of BEMs and MBEs, it goes for the amalgamation of the MC with the Military Medal; it goes for the ending of the discrimination by which some people, according to the rank of their honour, were allowed a Royal Investiture and other people were not. There are a number of other points which equally I would welcome.

However, I see one difficulty lurking in the new arrangements. It is suggested that high civil servants —permanent secretaries are primarily concerned— shall in future not automatically qualify for Honours. Most people would agree with that as a general statement of principle. So it may perhaps seem a little odd that the Government should have prefaced that by making entry to this House—as was shown by the mass creations following the election—a more automatic reward for service as a Minister than has hitherto been the case.

Leaving that aside for the moment, the position of permanent secretaries seems to raise the slight problem of making it still more difficult to maintain the traditions of a wholly impartial Civil Service. Those traditions have been put under considerable strain by 14 years of continuous one-party government, fortified by the existence of the "Is he one of us?" philosophy. We have seen, as a result, certain unfortunate examples of Civil Service weakness. Those examples, frankly, have deeply shocked someone like myself who has a great admiration for the British Civil Service tradition. Therefore we have a position in which there are two desiderata running into conflict with each other. We agree that there should be no automatic Honours, even for permanent secretaries—only for exceptional and very good service. But to make civil servants, who may naturally desire Honours very much indeed, still more dependent on the goodwill of their political masters is not desirable. The logic of that position, for which a very strong case exists independently, is that the right of unilateral decision on Honours should be taken out of the hands of the Prime Minister and placed upon a wider and more impartial basis. If that were done, which I think is the logical consequence of much that is in the Statement, one could welcome the Statement wholeheartedly. Until that is the case I have considerable reservation about one perhaps un-foreseen consequence, which I have endeavoured to outline to your Lordships' House.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, for the part of their remarks which supported what the Government propose.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, welcomed a great many aspects of the Statement and I shall therefore comment only on the points on which he had some difficulty. I believe that there is a clear difference between us over political Honours. We take the view that there is no reason why those who work for, or support, a political party should be excluded from recognition. Work done for a political party is a fundamental part of our democratic process and in many cases involves substantial voluntary effort. We for our part regret that the Labour Party does not recognise that. We believe that it would be better if it thought differently, but that is a matter for it to decide. It is not true to say that awards of Honours are influenced by donations to political parties. As the noble Lord knows full well, all recommendations for political Honours are carefully examined by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, a committee of Privy Counsellors, on which all three main parties are represented. All three members of that committee are, as is well known, Members of this House. They have very careful rules about the information that has to be supplied to them. The concern raised by the noble Lord cannot in practice be substantiated in any way.

With regard to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, I am pleased too that he accepts a great deal of what is proposed. If his concern about the Civil Service was one that would cause difficulties in practice, I too would be worried. But I do not believe that it will cause the sort of problems which he suggested. The Government are fully behind the independent, impartial Civil Service. Honours will continue to be awarded with impartiality, with assessments based upon merit. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will know from his time in government, there is a very substantial system for making impartial assessments of the performance of civil servants, and that impartial assessment will still play the same substantial part. We have great admiration for the way civil servants and others provide dedicated and impartial service to government. Certainly, nothing in the Prime Minister's Statement should imply that civil servants will be debarred in future. Many will continue to receive recognition but that reward will now be based much more on merit and not just on career level.

3.57 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I welcome particularly my noble friend's statement that all awards will be graced by a Royal Investiture. I am sure he appreciates that that will add enormously to the value of those awards which at present do not receive that advantage. It is a very sensible addition. Can he say how much additional work that will involve for Her Majesty and what numbers are involved.

Secondly, perhaps I may say how glad I am that the Government have at long last abolished the ridiculous rule in the Armed Forces whereby the award received for gallantry in service was affected by rank and that there was a different award according to whether one was another rank or an officer.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, particularly for his support for changing the way in which gallantry awards are made. My noble friend is absolutely right. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed to increase the number of Royal Investitures so that all who wish to attend to receive their award can do so. However, as I indicated, Knighthoods apart, those preferring a local ceremony will be able to choose to have their award presented by their Lord Lieutenant. It is not possible to be absolute about the increased number of Investitures that will have to be held, but I understand that the increase is likely to be from about 16 to about 22. That is the order of the extra work.

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff

My Lords, I express a general welcome for the announcement that has been made. It represents, I believe, an improvement on the existing situation. Following upon the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will the Government and the Palace consider holding investitures in Wales and in Scotland? It might, for example, be very appropriate for the Prince of Wales to hold an investiture in Cardiff or indeed somewhere else in Wales. Many people might be happy to take advantage of that.

Another point on that topic is the disappointment felt by many people who receive awards at the limitation on the numbers of those who may attend, leading to denials to close members of the family. Can that position not be looked at to see whether the problem can be overcome so that intimate members of the family can attend with the recipient on a day which gives such great pleasure? Sometimes that does not happen.

I am glad to hear that the right to nomination is being widened. Will those nominations go straight to No. 10, or go through departments, where there has always been an input and the departments themselves put forward names? That may be made clear in due course. I would suppose that they will go direct to No. 10. I was the recipient of many such nominations and always regarded the self-nominators with a sceptical eye, especially when they assured me that they did not want the Honour for themselves but that it would give the wife such pleasure!

I agree with my noble friend Lord Richard that there is a blench in the question of the conferment of Knighthoods on Back-Benchers who do not make the grade as Ministers. Knighthood should not be regarded as a consolation prize for those who do not really come up to it. The appropriate distinction for Members of Parliament is the Privy Council. To become a Member of the Privy Council is the most honourable position one can hold. That is where the distinction should lie, and I support what was said on that issue.

Despite what the Leader of the House said, there must be rigorous examination of those managing directors and captains of industry who are put forward for Knighthoods. For the most part, those people are well rewarded in other directions. I cannot escape the suspicion that on many occasions the award of a Knighthood is to some extent related to the amount of the contributions to the Conservative Party. The noble Lord may deny that, and indeed it may be untrue, but I can tell him that the view is widely held. If he wishes, as I am sure he does, as I do, to ensure that the lists are clean and wholesome—though clearly there will be occasions when industry should be rewarded, such as when somebody breaks into an export market in a difficult foreign country —the granting of Knighthoods should be considered much more rigorously than at present.

Finally, let me say how welcome I find the Prime Minister's Statement on the need to reward voluntary service. I always found that the most genuine pleasure was felt among those who had served publicly and voluntarily for many years—who never hit the headlines and never had their names in the media but did it without expectation or hope of reward—and one morning awoke to find a letter on the mantelpiece saying that they were being proposed for a distinction. That is where the awards and Honours system has a great deal to commend it. I am delighted that it is continuing.

In increasing the number of voluntary awards I hope that the Government will not increase the total. If there was a substantial increase it would begin to devalue the awards, which are so important. Subject to what I have said, I genuinely welcome the changes that are to he made. I am sure that they will be for the good.

4 p.m.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for those questions. I suspect that not many people have had the experience of the responsibilities he has held and would therefore not be able to ask those questions, which in many ways go right to the heart of the issues that had to be resolved. I made a note of them and hope that I can give the noble Lord answers to all of them. If not, I shall certainly write to him afterwards.

As I understand it, it is the intention that a greater number of Investitures should take place out of London. While I have no authority to say that the Prince of Wales will conduct an Investiture at Cardiff, the fact that the noble Lord suggested it may add to the possibility of its happening rather than diminish it. It is a sensible suggestion.

As the noble Lord will fully recognise, numbers at the Palace was a problem under the old system in regard to how many people could attend on these special occasions. With the increased numbers attending it will not be any easier. I know that the Palace will want to do all it can in that direction. It is also one of the reasons why the Queen agreed to keep the local ceremonies, where the Lord Lieutenant presents the awards, in those cases where recipients prefer it. On those occasions they are able to have a greater number of their family present, and that is a choice that people will have to make.

With regard to the nomination forms and to where they are sent, my understanding is that they should be sent to No.10. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be a degree of flexibility. If they arrive at the wrong desk we shall soon get them to the right desk. The object is to make it easier to receive nominations and not to introduce additional bureaucracy. I remember the noble Lord on occasions having a list in his pocket of those who applied which he has been known to bring out from time to time to help him. I do not need that today, and in fact I do not have such a list in my pocket.

I recognise the point that the noble Lord makes with regard to Knighthoods. With respect, I do not agree with him. I agree this far: the whole thrust of the Prime Minister's Statement was that few Honours were formerly automatic but now none will be. That will apply to political as well as to any other kind of Honour. It is therefore appropriate with the Statement that time-serving Members of Parliament will not automatically receive a Knighthood, if that should be the suggestion, purely for their time-serving service. However, I do not believe that they should be excluded if their service is of such distinction that it merits recognition.

The noble Lord also made some important points with regard to voluntary service. At the moment around 15 per cent. of the awards on the Prime Minister's list are for unpaid community service and to voluntary bodies and charities; 50 per cent. of those on the list have undertaken some measure of voluntary work. It is our view that that percentage should increase.

The noble Lord also makes an important point that the total number of awards should not be increased because by doing so the the award would thus be devalued. The lists are at present around 1,000; it is anticipated that at the end of the review the number will be of the same order.

The Earl of Erroll

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the more disturbing points of the Statement is the suggestion that the Military Medal is not equal to the Military Cross? I have always been brought up to understand that the two were equal. The Statement suggests that there is a ranking between the two, which I have never understood to be so.

The second point that disturbs me is the suggestion that our senior civil servants are not there because of merit. If so, why have the Government allowed it?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, if I may say so, that is something of a misunderstanding. The concern that government have with regard to, for instance, the Military Cross and the Military Medal is that, because there was a distinction between the rank of person who received them, there might be perceived to be a difference. We do not accept that there is a difference, and therefore we do not accept that there is a need for a different kind of medal as between one rank and another. What is in the Statement is to correct the true position rather than to change it.

With regard to the high ranking civil servant, he has achieved his position through the promotion arrangements that are made in the Civil Service, which are based on merit. That will continue. There is no suggestion that civil servants or public servants are not there on merit. The suggestion is that getting there purely on merit is not sufficient in itself to be the justification for an award. It is something over and above the ordinary service in doing the job that merits an award. That is something which I should have thought would commend itself to most people.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will allow me to call his attention to what some noble Lords may feel is an omission from the Statement. I refer to the lack of any reference to civilian awards for gallantry—the George Cross and the George Medal. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and others, have called attention to the fact that these are too rarely awarded. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether this might be looked at when the whole question of the numbers, and so on, is considered again later this year. Here is something which people feel very worried about.

Lord Merlyn-Rees

My Lords, perhaps I may—

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I should answer my noble friend Lord Beloff before we go on to the next question.

My noble friend raises an important point. The civilian awards did not feature in the Statement because there is going to be no change in the criteria by which they are awarded. But the review of numbers that will take place will look right across the board. If there was any change in the numbers to be recommended, that would come out of the review.

Lord Merlyn-Rees

My Lords, I ask one question arising out of the very welcome change in the removal of the distinction between crosses and medals. I ask the noble Lord to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to consider it. I speak from a knowledge of the Royal Air Force which in this sense was very different during the last war. People who were awarded medals and crosses become fewer every day because of anno domini; but a large number of the young men who captained aircraft during the last war, with officers as navigators or even gunners, were themselves sergeants or flight sergeants. Most of them, if they lived, became officers. They became wing commanders and even group captains. But if they had been awarded the DFM, which they revered—it was much more difficult to get a DFM than to get a DFC —they had to put a subsequent DFC in front of it. I ask the Secretary of State for Defence to consider not a change or retrospection but that if a man wants to put his DFM before his DFC he should be able to do so.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, I shall probably get into trouble after I finish; but I think that the noble Lord makes a suggestion with which I cannot find any fault. I shall certainly pass it on to the Secretary of State.

Lord Morris

My Lords, the fundamental principle that I glean from the repetition of the Statement by my noble friend is that the holding of a high office with great distinction will not of itself merit an award with, if I may say so, the most correct distinction with regard to Her Majesty's judges appointed in the High Court. Will this principle be applied to judges of the Court of Appeal, who as a direct result only of their high office are awarded the great honour and distinction of membership of the Privy Council?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the Statement does not indicate any change in the system of appointment to the Privy Council. That is not just an award in the sense of a medal. It also brings with it some responsibilities. That will continue in the same way as up to now.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, relating to political honours. The Prime Minister has indicated his enthusiasm for more open government. That being so, many of us would welcome the publication of the criteria by which the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee makes its decisions and in particular whether, when a captain of industry is recommended for a knighthood, that committee is informed of the donations made to the Conservative Party by the company of which he is chairman.

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee considers political honours. It does not consider honours that are made for industry, medicine or anything of that kind in the normal course of events. However, there is one very important improvement or change which was made by my noble friend Lady Thatcher in 1979. She said that for the protection of the system, any name which the Prime Minister personally adds to the list at CBE level or above which has not been through the ordinary selection procedure, (which involves a quite complicated Whitehall system) is then treated like a political honour and is scrutinised by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. So no name on the Prime Minister's list avoids impartial and careful consideration. As to the the generality of honours for captains of industry, and so on, they will not get an award merely for being a successful chairman of a company. Under the new system, they will have to show some merit or some public or voluntary service over and above that. The long-established system for considering honours of that kind takes account of all the factors which are relevant and would discount from an assessment any question of political contributions that an individual's company or organisation might well make. So a great many of such awards do not come to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee but are dealt with by the Whitehall machine in the normal way.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear that I ask this question only out of my thirst for knowledge and with no ulterior motive. The noble Lord the Leader of the House made it perfectly clear, as does the Statement, that automatic honours by way purely of holding certain offices will cease. Is that to be the position with the Lord Mayor of London, who until now has had an automatic knighthood on becoming Lord Mayor?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, my understanding is that is the position. The practice of recommending the Lord Mayor of London elect for a GBE automatically on appointment will end as an application of this principle. But experience shows that Lord Mayors have given great public service of some kind. In future, individual service and achievement will be taken into account; but there will certainly be no automatic appointment on becoming Lord Mayor elect. It does not follow—indeed, the contrary must be obvious— that all Lord Mayors' public service will be the same to qualify for the same award, if any.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, perhaps I may—

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, we should move on now.