Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440-459)
11 MARCH 2004
PROFESSOR DAVID
CANNADINE, PROFESSOR
PETER HENNESSY
AND MR
SIMON JENKINS
Q440 Chairman: Okay. Also, you are at
one, as I understand it, on the idea of removing titles from all
this.
Professor Hennessy: Yes.
Professor Cannadine: Yes.
Q441 Chairman: Why does that matter?
Professor Cannadine: Why is it
important?
Q442 Chairman: We had better ask the
question before Simon Jenkins gets here. Why does it matter?
Professor Cannadine: It matters
if one believes in the notion—which one may or may not—of
a classless society; that if there is to be a classless society
where hierarchies of status no longer matter and we now live in
a world where that is thought right, then the notion of handles
in front of names does not seem appropriate. But, in answering
that, I would want to return to my point about taking the honours
system as a whole. If it were suggested that in future honours
should not carry with them titles, that would still leave, as
it were, the baggage of the past (that is, all those at present
with titles, some of whom have earned them, some of whom have
inherited them) and I think it would not lie consistently if one
took the view that in future there will be no titles but, nevertheless,
we will stay with the titles that are already here. I think the
Committee would need to address that question.
Q443 Chairman: You do not really want
to deprive the nation of Dame Judi Dench, do you? We have had
letters from someone in the North East saying, "Do you realise
the amount of pride in the North East when Bobby Robson became
Sir Bobby Robson?" Why do these things trouble us?
Professor Hennessy: I think if
you have a recognition system which genuinely recognises great
virtue, you do not necessarily need it. The French Legion d'Honneur
does, the Order of Canada does. I know it lacks the Gilbert and
Sullivan touch to which we obstinately cling—and, again,
I might shed a private tear for the passing of it, like I did
for steam locomotives and Lyons Corner Houses, for example, being
a man prone to nostalgia in little bursts—but I do think
high public service should be its own reward. And, indeed, it
is, and you can recognise it and embellish it without pandering
to those rather absurd . . . Well, it is not absurd always, but
it quite often encourages the wrong sort of person, does it not,
this name change thing? That is the trouble. I mean, it is all
right for us, you might think, because we are professors and we
slap academic awards on each other and honorary this and honorary
that, but it was Isaiah Berlin—who is a hero to both of
us—who I think once said that the recognition that matters
is in the things you put after your name rather than before—though
he did accept a knighthood; but he was exceptional—and I
think there is something in that.
Professor Cannadine: He refused
a peerage.
Professor Hennessy: Yes.
Professor Cannadine: He was fairly
even-handed.
Professor Hennessy: Absolutely.
The story—which you might want to inquire into because David
and I cannot track it down—is why he was Isaiah Berlin OM
and it was Sir Karl Popper CH. Because when Bertrand Russell died,
so it is said—and I'm not one for gossip, I should say,
but history needs to know this—soundings were taken by the
Palace—though you are not looking into the Palace honours,
I know—and everybody said, "Karl Popper is now the
greatest living British philosopher." The Queen was having
dinner with her mother and she said, "We're replacing Bertie
Russell with a chap called Popper who is frightfully clever,"
and the Queen Mother is alleged to have said, "I've never
heard of him but I've got this wonderful friend in Oxford who
is such fun called Isaiah Berlin," which explains why it
was Isaiah Berlin OM and Karl Popper CH. It probably is not true
but it has a slight ring of plausibility to it. You might try
to find out for me, because history needs to know, Chairman, you
see.
Chairman: I think at the point where
Peter Hennessy says, "I don't do gossip," it is time
to hand over to Ian Liddell-Grainger.
Q444 Mr Liddell-Grainger: I was just
having explained to me what a Lyons House is.
Professor Hennessy: Lyons Corner
House.
Q445 Mr Liddell-Grainger: It may be something
to do with my age and not living in Bournemouth.
Professor Hennessy: It is a restaurant,
not a zoo.
Q446 Mr Liddell-Grainger: I have discovered
that it is not a bar which you buy from—
Professor Hennessy: The Nippys
were the thing—which I will explain later.
Professor Cannadine: Before you
ask your question, it is worth mentioning that it was said in
certain quarters that Isaiah Berlin got his OM for services to
conversation—which is, indeed, compatible with the Queen
Mother thinking he was a good thing.
Professor Hennessy: Yes. Maybe
there's hope for us, dear.
Professor Cannadine: They don't
yet have them for services to gossip!
Q447 Mr Liddell-Grainger: We could do
a lot of gossip. Could I come back to this, because there is something
that has been bothering me for some time, the more we look at
this. When this leak came out in the Sunday Times that
Colin Blakemore was not going to get it because he was too controversial,
but Tim Henman was going to get it because he is a little bit
more spicy—and I bet they are glad it was not Rusedski—
Professor Hennessy: I have never
thought of him as spicy; I thought it was very harsh actually.
The dullest man in the kingdom.
Q448 Mr Liddell-Grainger: That is the
key to this, is it not? In your considered opinion is the system
becoming corrupt at the wrong level?
Professor Hennessy: Corrupt at
the wrong level?
Q449 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Because what
you are getting is: "We can't go this way because it's a
bit too controversial; but let's go that way because"—like
the Bobby Robson in the North East thing—"it throws
the people a little bit of gong."
Professor Cannadine: It is an
interesting definition of corruption. I do not know whether your
question implies that it is all right to be corrupt at the right
level but that we should worry that it is now corrupt at the wrong
level—which could be an interpretation of what you have
just said.
Q450 Mr Liddell-Grainger: I am thinking
of No. 10. more than anything, to be absolutely frank.
Professor Cannadine: I take the
force of that. Honours and corruption are, as it were, inextricably
linked—at least in the public mind and, perhaps, historically—but
there are of course different modes of corruption; that is to
say, buying them or, one could argue—and maybe this is what
you have in mind—giving them to certain people to produce,
as it were, support for the government which has given it to them.
Perhaps when the Beatles got their MBEs one could perhaps argue
that that was a corrupt honour. But I would be a bit reluctant
to use the word "corrupt" there. I suppose the more
tactful and perhaps more accurate word would be "populist";
that is to say, that it might be thought that politicians wished
to give honours to some people at least whom the public have heard
of—and many honours of course go to people whom the public
have not heard of. Perhaps it is a rather good idea that some
people who get honours are people whom the public has heard of
because then the public will know that the honours system in some
sense connects with their notion of the world. One could take
the view that, far from it being a corrupting influence on the
system, it is actually a necessary part of the system's legitimation.
I am not saying that is the only argument that could be
made, but that argument could be made: If the honours system does
not reward people whom the public as a whole has heard of, then
it lacks popular legitimacy and recognition, and actually an honours
system must have that as one of its elements of sustainability.
Q451 Mr Liddell-Grainger: What do you
think, Peter?
Professor Hennessy: I do not think
"corrupt" is the right word. I was shocked, however—because
I live a blameless life—when the file was declassified for
Mr Macmillan's Night of the Long Knives, when he sacked a third
of his cabinet. Because the private office feared he might get
upset—because he was quite sensitive to butchering people—they
had little cribs in front of him which said things like, "Offer
Mr Watkinson a CH now and a Viscountcy whenever he is ready"
at the bottom of the form of words he might use, to soften the
blow. That is not corrupt but it is a little bit tricky. "Corrupt"
is not the word. But history will find out the direct prime ministerial
patronage, so I am told, because, if a prime minister puts a name
in or takes one out, it is meticulously recorded: "Removed
by instruction of prime minister" or "put in by instruction
. . ." I do not know if anybody is here from the ceremonial
branch of the cabinet office. They might want to join in the discussions
because they know about that.
Q452 Mr Liddell-Grainger: They will not.
Professor Hennessy: That is why
history one day will find out. Which is good. I think that shows
the virtues of a proper Crown civil service, you see, because
if there is a little bit of this going on and it is perfectly
within the prime minister's rights for him or her to do this,
but I think we should know, should we not? I think people vary.
Ted Heath did suffer. I do not know if Sir Sydney remembers this,
but Ted Heath was thought to suffer very much because he disdained
a lot of this and, when he got into the trouble because of the
world and events and his party got a bit jumpy, the lack of "baublery"
was thought to have made life a bit difficult for him.
Professor Cannadine: It is worth
adding there that many prime ministers have taken the view that
having to deal with people constantly importuning for honours
is among the more dismal aspects of their job—so that this,
as it were, cuts both ways. I mean, one might want to say, as
Peter has just done, that the papers do, with the Night of the
Long Knives, reveal the cynical use of the system by the prime
minister, but one might also want to say that for many prime ministers
having to fend off or cope with importuners shows, to the extent
that this is corruption in action, that the corruption is on both
sides. I mean, this is a matter of supply and demand, and many
prime ministers have found fending off applicants for honours
a deeply dismal act and practice and showing that human nature
in this country at least is irretrievably tainted by a wish for
honours which itself is rather degrading for the people who wish
to have them.
Professor Hennessy: One of the
prime ministers—I can never remember which—used to
refer to the "chic of the unadorned" because it had
sort of got out of hand really. It was noticeable that Mr Macmillan
waited for a very long while before he took his earldom, and,
if I remember, his defence was: "It's a great thing for a
chap of a certain age to be in the Lords because there is a loo
within 25 yards of you wherever you are!"—which is
one of the more utilitarian defences of the House of Lords which
you might want to use as part of your other inquiries.
Q453 Mr Liddell-Grainger: If I could
come on to the House of Lords. We now have a sea-change in the
House of Lords, where the Prime Minister has desperately been
making people up to try to redress the balance in the House of
Lords. To me—and I think to a lot of people—that is
blatantly trying to change the political system. I believe—and
I think it is in one of these works—that this Prime Minister
has given out more peerages than Lloyd George.
Professor Cannadine: Yes.
Q454 Mr Liddell-Grainger: That is actually
quite an achievement in what is five years. Is that not actually
going down the wrong line? Is that not the wrong way to do this?
Professor Cannadine: This is,
of course—as I tried to suggest in my memorandum—one
of the things that I think is very tricky at the moment. Peerages
are of course honours but they are also power positions and that
makes it very complicated. Roy Jenkins rather grandly says, "A
peerage is not an honour, it is a station in life." That
was Roy's view of it—but actually that still means it is
an honour, even if it was a station for Roy, I suppose! But it
is very complicated. Peerages rank in the order of precedence,
and they carry titles, so in all those ways they are honours—and
they rank higher than a knighthood—so if you have a knighthood,
the next step up is to get a peerage. And, of course, in the old
days, when they were hereditary, there was a whole elaborate ranking
and hierarchy of peerages themselves. But they also, as of now,
carry with them the power to legislate if it is a life peerage.
So I suppose the difficulty here, looking at this aspect of the
system, is that peerages may be honours—and to that extent
of course it is right to talk about them here—but they are
also power positions, and therefore the future of peerages is
inextricably linked with the future of reforming the House of
Lords. Moreover, of course it is the case, if it was proposed
that all titles should go, that it is no use them just being the
bits that this Committee deals with. I mean, what about Knights
of the Garter (that is to say, Royal honours) and what about peerages
which at the moment still carry titles? I am certainly willing
to take the view that if one is talking of the House of Lords
as an upper chamber, either it should have been all hereditary
or it should be all elected, but that does not help, in so far
as peerages are nominated and are honours.
Professor Hennessy: Michael Oakeshott
used to say that you always had to distinguish peerages because
they were instrumental: they enabled you to become a legislator—and,
in that sense, it is a power position, exactly as David was saying.
But the fancy franchises that produced the House of Lords as we
have come to know it—and it is still there really, with
the few hereditaries remaining and the law Lords and the rest
of it—are beyond belief when you think about it. There is
still a high utility in the House of Lords—I am not one
of its great defenders, I have to say, but I mean in terms of
knowledgeable people—and it was a wonderful device when
we decided we did not as a country have to execute failed politicians;
we had a sort of receptacle for them, and that is its great historical
function—which is not needed at the moment, but might be
again, I suppose, one day. The problem with peerages now is they
have become so risible. I felt very sorry for certain friends
of mine who were on Harold's `lavender notepaper' list because
they never recovered. They literally did not. It became a stigma
that they carried. The alleged people's peers last time, they
made even David Cannadine and I look like men of the people that
lot did—
Professor Cannadine: Speak for
yourself!
Professor Hennessy: — and
some of them have been terribly hurt. And there is a new list
coming, and I gather—again, not that I'm one for gossip,
Chairman—that there are a lot of trade unionists in it because
they want people who will turn up and vote. We are not allowed
to talk about the Labour movement any more, are we? Romantics
like you and I might in private, but . . . Anyway, the old Labour
movement—
Q455 Mr Liddell-Grainger: He is there.
Professor Hennessy: There we are,
yes. It is always nice. It is always reassuring. Thank you.
Q456 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Sir Kelvin
Hopkins!
Professor Hennessy: The old Labour
movement knew about how to run a committee and would always do
what was required of it. It was loyal, you see. So they will turn
up and actually do the business. One hears that in the next one
there is going to be a bit of a reversion to good old Labour people—which
I am quite pleased with really, as a sort of political historian
and antiquarian and very fond of the old Labour movement in a
kind of way—but the trouble is some of them will be so hurt
when the press treats it as a wonderfully risible event again,
that I think the State, out of its own resources, should provide
counselling straight away for some of the recipients, because
they do get terribly hurt—and, if it is like Harold's list,
they never recover some of them. I mean, it is a terrible burden
to have to carry, is it not, to be thought of to have been a grade
one-listed recipient of No. 10's patronage? It is dreadful. I
mean, you and I would never recover, would we?
Q457 Mr Liddell-Grainger: We are beginning
to get to the nub of this, aren't we? There is a system that is
clearly not working correctly. There is a system which has 30,000
people who do not know whether they are going to get a gong, a
medal or whatever. If you are a senior civil servant, you are
going to get it. If you are a senior military man, you are going
to get it. If you are a senior politician, you are going to get
it. If you are a nurse, a teacher or whatever, your chances are
pretty minimal, are they not? Perhaps we need to get—and
maybe for Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland—a separate
system for each of them, the BO (the British Order). There you
are, the BO of Bath. The Order of Britain.
Professor Cannadine: It would
be a complementary match, would it not?
Professor Hennessy: Yes, it would
be.
Q458 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Sir Sydney
BO.
Professor Cannadine: Next to somebody
with a bath!
Q459 Mr Liddell-Grainger: Exactly, you
could really run it. But is that not the problem: it has all become
too complicated, it is out of touch with what goes on in this
country now, it is just shambolic.
Professor Cannadine: For the reasons
I tried to give, I am not sure it is shambolic. It is, I think,
a historical relic that needs attention—which might be what
you mean by shambolic, in which case it is shambolic; that is
to say, it is still basically the system of imperial honours devised
in the late 19th and early 20th century with some attenuations
and some adaptations but it is still basically that system. Britain
is no longer an imperial nation, it no longer gives imperial honours.
Other countries have elected their own instead. In that broad
historical perspective it is time it was looked at again. That
is not quite the same, I suppose, as saying—and this is
where I want to keep distinguishing between what the structure
of honours is and the process whereby people are given them—it
is harder for a nurse to get a gong than it is for a general.
That is in a way a connected but slightly different issue. That
issue is, I think, in some senses a much more complicated one
to deal with. I think it is relatively easy to reconstruct the
structure of honours in the way that I have suggested; I think
the notion: Should as many nurses get honours pro rata as generals?
is much more tricky—much more tricky.
Professor Hennessy: The interesting
thing for me is that as a country . . . I mean, we vary as individuals
on this, but I think the bulk of us would have our own private
hierarchy of esteem of those who do difficult and virtuous jobs
beyond the call of duty and usually for very low pay. One of the
features of our society has often been that the jobs that really
matter to us all carry the least financial reward, and the notion
of public service compensates, and honours, indeed, were a compensation
for low pay. But in our own hierarchy of esteem I suspect most
of us rather regret the phenomenon of, "To them that hath
shall be given." It is something David Wilkinson raised in
his report that he wrote for Richard Wilson, about the nun who
got the MBE for selfless devotion in Africa and so on who was
terribly pleased, and for no money. That was the tariff for really
blameless service, way beyond the call of duty. You could say
that in a nun's case the reward is in heaven, but not everybody
might accept that! That is the problem with it. This is not an
argument for inverting it, but there is a difficulty when the
tariff goes with the level of job, however well people perform
in it. That is where the anxieties arise. It does not degrade
the hierarchy of esteem which we all share but it sort of seeps
into it a bit and I think that is very regrettable—very
regrettable.
Professor Cannadine: I think it
used to be the case—but this would now be more than a generation
ago—that the justification, in a sense, for public servants,
be them civil or military, getting a disproportionate percentage
of honours was that they were not paid very large salaries; that
one served the State and did not expect to make money out of it
but the reward down here and not in heaven—though there
may be a celestial hierarchy of honours for all we know—was
that you were not paid much but you got a knighthood, and this
provided what we now call "psychic income" which, as
it were, topped up real income. That was the system, which in
various ways had a sort of justification. What I think has changed,
of course, is that salaries of public employees at the very top
level have gone up and we are now told they must be comparable
with the private sector "otherwise you will not get good
people in Whitehall" or even perhaps in the military. So
it seems to me that that aspect of the honours system has not
accommodated itself to the very considerable change in the structure,
of income of public servants. In the old days it was low income,
high honours; it is now high income, high honours, and that does
not seem to me to be defensible in the way that it was in the
days when income was low.
Professor Hennessy: Historically
there was a terrible problem with this, you know, because when
Burke Trend was Cabinet Secretary he used to look after the secret
vote for the secret services and he felt very strongly that those
who had served abroad under cover in embassies and low-ranking
jobs did not get a fair crack of the whip and their wives did
not either. The way, I am afraid, that some of the Queen's enemies
used to work out who the station chief of the SIS was, was to
see the chap with the lowly graded nominal rank in the embassy
and look at the honour. It led to these absurdities. Because it
was a compensatory award. I think all that has been taken care
of since, but that was generally worrying in the old days, you
see. Also, is it true any more . . . . I have to say, being a
romantic about public service really, that it should be its own
reward. I am waiting to say what I really think until Simon shimmers
in, but I actually do think, for example—and I think I circulated
that article I wrote in The Tablet: "Tower of Bauble"
to you for these purposes—that there are some jobs that
I think that should voluntarily disbar themselves from being considered,
and journalists are one of them, I have to say.
|
