By Vivienne Russell | 29 August 2012
The proportion of honours awarded to civil servants and other public sector workers should be ‘rebalanced’ with those given to people who volunteer in their local communities, MPs have recommended.
Public sector employees, particularly Whitehall mandarins and other senior figures such as council chief executives, traditionally make a strong showing in the biannual honours rounds. But a report from the Commons public administration select committee, published today, criticised the current honours system as too geared towards rewarding people for simply ‘doing their day job’.PASC chair Bernard Jenkin said: ‘Far too few [honours] are being awarded to ordinary citizens for the extraordinary contributions they make to their communities – which is what the honours system should be for.
‘There should be no “automatic” honours who people who hold a certain post, or for celebrities and sports stars at a certain level, but too often it seems this is still the case.’
The committee reiterated its call, made in an earlier report, for the establishment of an independent honours commission to consider nominations. The prime minister should also lose his influence over the system, it added, and reasons for awards should be published in detail.
Responding, a Cabinet Office spokesman said: ‘Honours are awarded on merit to those who make outstanding contributions and not for simply doing the day job. Far from being the preserve of politicians, civil servants and celebrities, the vast majority go to the unsung heroes who do remarkable work in their communities.
‘In the last list, just over 1,200 people received awards of which 72% were actively engaged in charitable or voluntary work.’
The PASC also criticised the decision earlier this year to strip former Royal Bank of Scotland boss Fred Goodwin of his knighthood.
Jenkin said: ‘The decision… was made in response to media pressure, by a shadow group of senior civil servants, acting in secret, with no clear rules or criteria.
‘This is no longer satisfactory: the honours forfeiture committee should be independent and its procedures and decisions must be more transparent.’
