Sir, I take it that Matthew Parris' plea for more hypocrisy in the honours system (Comment, Nov 18) is an argument for less, in which case, I agree.

Before everyone gets on their moral high horses, let’s accept that all the major parties in this country have been involved in cash-for-honours sales for generations. I’m certain every prime minister in the past 50 years or more who is now dead (those still living are protected by the libel laws) gave honours in return for money for the party. A list of dodgy awards would fill a column of The Times. A possible exception is Sir Alec Douglas-Home who wasn’t there long enough.

They weren’t lining their own pockets. It was the only way to maintain their political offices. When Harold Wilson left Downing Street for the Leader of the Opposition’s office, the Labour Party “granted” him £6,000 a year to run it and pay the salaries of nine secretaries, Lady Falkender and myself as his press secretary. It is simplistic to say that the members of the party should fork out for it all: the fact is they don’t, they never have and they never will.

That means selling to rich men who have everything else. Didn’t Yates of the Yard’s predecessors, in drawing up arrest warrants for fraud for Lord Brayley, Lord Kagan or Sir Eric Miller, to name but a few who supported Wilson’s office, bother to ask themselves whether their honours were for something less than indefatigable service to the community? The reopening of cold cases seems to be the rage. Let Mr Yates dig into them — Harold Macmillan’s Government would be a good place to start.

Rich men crave honours. I remember only one who rejected a knighthood because he wanted to help the party, not himself. The others couldn’t wait to get to their tailors to order a new morning suit.

So let’s end the hypocrisy. Either abolish the honours system with the taxpayer bearing the cost of political parties or accept that it was, is and always will be corrupt.

JOE HAINES
Tunbridge Wells

Explore Letters

• Feedback