---

Honours System (Reform)

: When I first stood for selection in my party, we were not permitted to mention money at all. We could not even refer to support from organisations that might donate money, because that could influence the selection. The selection had to be based on one's political worth, and that is absolutely right. That is the way it should be. I would like to touch on the issue of stardust. I am not persuaded that we should give awards that are seen to be media-friendly in order to gain a bit of credibility, perhaps, in certain areas of the sporting world or whatever. An independent commission should choose people for an honour—for a légion d'honneur, a CBE or an OBE—using recommendations from friends and whatever. It should not be seen to be saying, ““Ah yes, we have got to liven things up a bit with a few pop stars and footballers.”” If such celebrities have done wonderful things for Britain such as making great donations or bringing great honour to the country, they can be considered along with other people. However, in a sense, most people who are that famous, wealthy and powerful have had their reward. I want no more reward than I have had already. As others have said, being a Member of Parliament is the greatest honour, and it is bestowed not by somebody up there sprinkling stardust, but by voters who vote for us because they think us worthy of their support and of representing them. I am not keen on the idea of stardust either. I turn to another aspect of the report. Professor Peter Hennessy talked about the honours system being ““the lubricant”” of the state. I was unhappy with that. In many ways, Professor Hennessy is admirable—he made some superb contributions to our deliberations and is extremely entertaining—but I did not agree with him on that. I was more persuaded by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Jon Snow, who talked about the potential for corruption in politics and were absolutely right. I would like to see the abolition of any kind of politics in the honours system and, in conclusion, I shall quote a great man. When I started my political activity, I used to go to meetings in Arthur Henderson hall, our local Labour party hall. That was a long time ago, and I never thought that I would one day read out Arthur Henderson's words in Parliament. Here, he discusses politics, money and honours:"““This system whereby financial assistance rendered to a Party is recognised by the conferment of an honour by the State is, in my judgment, deplorable, and discredits the honours system. It is a means of enabling the temporarily dominant political party to bestow special political power, through membership of the House of Lords, on individuals of their own selection, and it does not secure that the person honoured possesses any distinction except his title.""In a democratic country it is a distinguishing mark of the good citizen that he interests himself according to his opportunity in the well-being of the community. It is indisputable that public service of great value has been rendered by men and women whose thoughts have never dwelt upon titled reward, and in view of the difficulty of keeping the honours list pure, I do not believe that the abolition of political honours would in any way diminish either the volume or quality of the services given to the community by its citizens.””" That was written 84 years ago, and it rings well today. I certainly support Arthur Henderson.