---

Honours System (Reform)

I congratulate the Committee on its report. We are indebted to it for such a detailed piece of work, but, as the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said, it is a shame that it has taken from its publication in July 2004 until now for us to debate it. Quite a lot has happened since the report was published. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recent scandal—or at least public concern—over cash for peerages. The police are investigating the matter, so it is perhaps not for me to go into the detail. However, what has appeared in the media has alarmed the public, so it is right that we should also consider the issue in the context of Lords reform and reform of party political funding. I agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that we should have a second Chamber, upper House or whatever one wants to call it with a substantially elected element. I also agree that there is a role for some appointment, but substantial election would help with the package of issues that we are discussing. The Conservative taskforce, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is chairing, is looking at a range of constitutional issues, including those three. My remarks will be coloured somewhat by the fact that he might make recommendations that we shall want to consider as seriously as we do those that the Committee has made. The Committee's report is good on how one might want to improve the procedures, and the Government have gone some way in meeting its points, but the disappointing thing, which received some publicity at the time, is the controversial idea of ending appointments to the Order of the British Empire and phasing out knighthoods and damehoods, and replacing them with an Order of British Excellence. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was my party's spokesman on the subject at the time. He described the proposal as a lot of trendy nonsense and a recipe for a ““bland and boring”” system. It is right to have proper procedures and to get away from political nominations, but to deny our history and to pretend that we are a young country with new ideas and that we have to forge a new constitution, which seems to be the politically correct idea behind the proposals, is a lot of nonsense. We are an ancient country and we have a lot of ancient traditions. People like honours, so why be a party pooper? The Committee has got that wrong—subject, of course, to what our taskforce says. [Laughter.] The Government have done well in their response, saying that the Order of the British Empire continues to play a well-understood and, in terms of numbers, predominant role in the honours system. They point out that 120,000 people have one and say:"““A number of existing members of the Order have said that they would be dismayed if there were serious moves to stop new appointments to the Order now, or in some other way to show that it had no continuing place in the life of the nation.””" The Government alighted on the common sense of the situation, and I am glad that they decided to opt for continuity and tradition rather than radical upheaval. I also agree with their conclusion on knighthoods, which they are right to say play a"““well-respected, understood and valued part in our national life.””" We have had a good debate today, and the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) made about people who have made a lengthy contribution to political parties locally was well taken. A lady in my constituency who has worked for the Conservative party her whole life has been awarded an OBE. In terms of encouraging people to participate in politics and make a difference, it is good to set such people up as role models and say, ““Here's somebody who has devoted their life to a cause they believe in. They've tried to make a difference and this is something that is good for our nation.”” Of course, that applies equally to other parties. I do not want us not to honour people in the political field, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the foot soldier who goes the extra mile should be recognised. [Interruption.] I hear a comment, sotto voce, about that also being true in Scotland, and I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) also set out some important principles, and some excellent points have been made from all parts of the Chamber. It is right that we should take a more proactive approach to seeking out those who merit an award. There is probably an element of truth in the point about metropolitan elites, so if we can move to a process that finds the people in the region or locality who genuinely deserve to be rewarded, we should. It is fair to say that John Major, who has been mentioned, started that process. He was committed to trying to spread the honours and to encouraging awards for people who had made a notable contribution locally. The Prime Minister's announcement in March that he would give up the right to nominate people for honours—the so-called Prime Minister's list—is to be welcomed. That is also something that the Committee recommended. We support the Prime Minister's decision, although wonder why he choose that moment—perhaps it was just convenient for him. Members of the Committee will be aware that other changes have been made. I do not want to go through them all, but the Government have moved somewhat. What should the principles be? The first principle must be that honours should be based solely on merit. As has been said, they should not simply be a reward for long service. The Government said that, for long service, the question should be whether a person has gone the extra mile and, for achievement, whether they stand head and shoulders above their peers. That is a good way of putting it, and it is also a point that John Major has always made. In his 1992 review, he was keen that merit should be the touchstone. There has been a considerable increase in the honours awarded for voluntary work since then, and the proportion of state servants in the list has fallen from 20 to 15 per cent. over that period. John Major can be proud of having started that process, but there is a lot more to do. Secondly, the system must be free from any corruption, or even the appearance that there might be an element of corruption. I hope that we can do more on that.