ANNEX: STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENT
Data have been made available to us by the Cabinet
office on both awards and nominations over a number of years.
A complete data set is available for all the awards
made from the Birthday Honours list in 1999 to the New Years Honours
list in 2004. This comprises over 10,000 individual data items
and is sufficiently comprehensive to analyse statistically.
The data on awards are fairly stable over the years
and there appear to have been no major changes in the period from
the Birthday Honours in 1999 to the New Year Honours in 2004.
Nominations are made by members of the public (about
45%) and also come directly from government departments. When
nominations are received, they are examined by subject specialist
Committees. The numbers and level of Honours awarded by these
Committees are listed in Table 1.
The columns in the table are as follows:
Stateawards made to civil servants
Med/S&Tawards made for services in the field of medicine,
science and technology
ACIawards made for services in Agriculture, Commerce and
Maecawards made for services to the Arts
Localawards made for local services
Sportawards made for services of sport
Mediaawards made for services to the Media
Millenniumspecial awards made in 2000
In order to determine whether the differences in the percentage
of each type of award made by the Committees are significant,
all awards at Knighthood level or above have been amalgamated.
The last two columns have also been excluded from the statistical
analysis as the numbers of awards involved are small. However
they are all included in the diagram (Figure 1) shown below.
A Chi-squared contingency table test was carried
out on the data and the differences in the levels of award made
by each Committee were found to be statistically highly significant.
The probability that the Committees awarded the same percentage
of each type of awards is less than 0.0001. (Chi-Sq
= 1135.048, DF = 18, P-Value < 0.0001). We have learned that
the Committees are not meant to recommend awards in the same proportion
as each other. Each Committee has a broad allocation of awards
at each level and they do vary significantly.
The key in Figure 1 refers to MBEs, OBEs and CBEs
and K/D represents the amalgamated data for each Honour at or
above the Knighthood level.
State and Non-State Awards
The data for the level of award for state and non-state
honours is given in Table 2
The data are illustrated in Figure 2.
A chi-squared contingency table test was carried
out on the data and the differences in the levels of award made
to state servants and members of the public are statistically
highly significant. The probability that each category receives
the same percentage of each type of award is less than 0.0001.
(Chi-Sq = 262.78, DF = 3, P-Value < 0.0001).
Data are also available on the numbers of state and
non-state awards made between 1955 and 2004 and these are illustrated
below in Figure 3.
There are peaks shown in Honours to the public at
the time of the Queen's Jubilee celebrations in 1977 and again
at the Millennium in 2000 when additional awards were made. In
1966, Harold Wilson's reforms to the Honours system resulted in
a sharp decline in the numbers allocated to state servants. This
decline can be seen more easily in Figure 4, which shows only
the State awards. There is also an obvious and continuing increase
in the number of awards made to the public in 1995. This was as
a result of the changes made to the system by the then Prime Minister
John Major. The British Empire Medal which had hitherto not been
included in the Honours list became an MBE and was included after
Black and Ethnic Minority Awards
The ethnicity of the recipient of each award is included
in the data from 1999 to 2004 and this is shown in Table 3. However,
this has been declared by the nominator rather than the recipient
and may be subject to error.Table
The differences in the two categories are less noticeable that
the differences between the different awarding Committees. However,
these differences are still statistically significant. (Chi-Sq
= 15.415, DF = 3, P-Value < 0.001). There are significant differences
between the categories of awards to Black and Ethnic Minority
people and others.
According to the 2001 census the percentage of black
and ethnic minority in the UK is 7.9%. But the percentage of black
and ethnic minority people receiving awards varies from 4.2% to
7.0% of the awards made.
Data on nominations made are also available but these
are less reliable. The Cabinet Office receives around 6000 nominations
each year and a random sample of around 300 has been extracted.
From the usable sample of 292, 14 are of unknown ethnic origin.
Of the remaining 278, 17 are Asian and 3 are black. This indicates
that about 7.2% of the nominations come from a black or ethnic
minority background. However this is subject to an error of plus
or minus 3%, and is too unreliable for conclusions to be drawn.
Awards to Women
Data on the awards made to women and men are available
from 1965 - 2004 and are illustrated below in Figure 6. The peaks
evident in previous data are also obvious here. However, it appears
that women did not benefit from John Major's reforms of 1995 as
much as the men. It is possible that women received fewer British
Empire Medals and therefore the numbers were not increased to
the same extent when this became an MBE.
The percentage of the awards made to women varies
from 14.5% to 40%.
Data on the level of awards for each region are available
for three years 2002-2004. These are given in Table 4 and illustrated
in Figure 7.
The differences appear to be large but the numbers are too small
for any statistical analysis of the whole table.
One submission we received suggested that Scotland
did badly in terms of its share of the higher awards. In order
to test whether this was the case in 2004, the data has been tabulated
for Scotland against the rest of the UK. This is given in Table
5. The statistical analysis did not reveal any significant differences
between Scotland and the rest of the UK in the level of the awards
given. (Chi-Squared = 1.64, Degrees of freedom =3, not significant)
|Rest of UK||34
The population of the UK is distributed as follows
in Table 6 and illustrated in Figure 8:
| ||Pop (m)
Regional data are available for the Birthday Honours list 2003
and the New Year's Honours List for 2003 and 2004. These are given
in Table 7 and illustrated in Figure 9.
It is noticeable that there are some large winners and losers.
Scotland receives 13% of the awards but has only 9% of the population
of the UK. Northern Ireland does well with 6% of the awards and
only 3% of the population. London and the South East receive 31%
of the awards but have only 27% of the population. The main loser
is the North West. The North West received 7% of the awards and
has 11% of the population.
The differences between the regional distribution
of the awards and the regional distribution of the population
are highly statistically significant. (Chi-squared = 343.8, Degrees
of freedom = 11, p<0.0001)
The remaining data are taken from those nominations
received in a single month in 2003. These were nominations emanating
from England. All the nominations from elsewhere in the UK go
to the devolved administrations. Table 7 and Figure 10 show the
regional distribution of the nominators.
|Area of Nominator||
|N E England||14
|N W England||19
|S E England||69
|S W England||30
| Northern Ireland||6
33% of the nominations come from London and the South East, but
those regions have only 27% of the population.
Occupation of Nominees
|Occupation of Nominees||
|Occupation || |
|Out of time||22
|Work in Industry||2
|Activities Nominated for||
|Black minority work||3