The Honours System - Public Administration Committee Contents

3  Increasing public trust in the honours system

19.  Sir Bob Kerslake, the Head of the Civil Service and Chair of the Main Honours Committee, reported high levels of awareness of, and pride in, the honours system among the public, citing Cabinet Office polling data from 2009 that 81% of the public were aware of the honours system, and 71% were proud that it existed.[29] Sir Bob also reported a reduction in the number of people who viewed the honours system as "out-of-date" from 40% in 2007 to 34% in 2009.[30]

20.  There remains, however, a certain level of public scepticism about the process of selecting recipients of honours. Witnesses told us that members of the public believed that honours could be "bought" by donating to a political party.[31] Graham Smith, Chief Executive of the pressure group Republic, believed that that the public viewed the honours system as "widely abused".[32] Sir Bob Kerslake told us that further work was necessary to increase the proportion of people who viewed the honours system as open and fair, from the current figure of 44%.[33]

21.  Sir Bob argued, however, that suggestions that honours could be "bought" "demean[ed]" the "ordinary people who have done exceptional service in their communities" and who received the "vast majority of honours".[34] David Briggs, the Lord Lieutenant of Cheshire, also urged us not to over-emphasise concerns about trust, arguing that "in the main the public think well of the honours system".[35] The Lord Lieutenant of Clackmannanshire, George Reid, cautioned however, that:

there is a gap between process and public perception. A substantial number of citizens neither understand the system nor believe that it has anything to do with them.[36]

22.  Our evidence suggested that the perception that honours are linked to donations to political parties is prevalent. It is a serious concern that many members of the public do not view the honours system as open or fair.

Understanding of different honours

23.  Sir Hayden Phillips's 2004 review of the honours system identified a lack of understanding about the series of different orders and awards as one of the factors contributing to the view that the honours system was "opaque".[37] The level of honour awarded, from Knight or Dame to BEM, depends in part on whether the impact of the work of the nominee is at national, regional or local level. A knighthood or damehood for example, recognises "pre-eminent contribution ... at a national level", while an OBE is awarded for a "distinguished regional or county-wide role in any field", and an MBE recognises outstanding service or achievement "to the community".[38] Our witnesses were concerned that offering higher honours for work at a national level elevated such work above devotion to the local community.[39]

24.  The delineation between local impact, recognised by an MBE, regional impact, recognised by an OBE, and national impact, recognised by a knighthood or damehood also raised issues in the devolved nations. It was argued by Major Alexander R. Trotter, Lord Lieutenant of Berwickshire, that following devolution, people who perform outstanding work in the voluntary sector at the national level in Scotland were awarded MBEs, not OBEs.[40] A similar point was made by Bernard Galton, Director General for Honours in the Welsh Government. He argued that the requirement to demonstrate impact at a national level in order to be eligible to receive the most senior honours penalised people living in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as national level was viewed in terms of the UK rather than in the nations that make up the United Kingdom.[41] Mr Galton added:

If devolution had not taken place, many of the individuals concerned may have been called upon to advise in a UK-wide capacity. Effectively, these individuals are paying the price for devolution; this is clearly unfair.[42]

25.  The evidence also suggests that the devolved nations, and certain English regions, receive a higher proportion of honours than is proportionate for their population size. This highlights the success of devolved bodies in championing nominations for honours, but also raises the danger of unequal treatment of nominations, depending on where in the UK the nominee is from. The high level of influence of the devolved bodies on the honours system also increases the risk of politicisation of the honours system in these regions.

26.  The different levels of Order of the British Empire reflect the wish to recognise sustained and exceptional achievement and service on a large and a small scale. The inconsistency about how different levels of honours are rewarded, particularly in the devolved nations, adds to a lack of understanding of the honours system. We call on the Cabinet Office to treat work at national level in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as national not regional service or achievement, when considering nominations for honours.

How honours are awarded

27.  Several Lords Lieutenant called for a reduction in the time taken for nominations to be considered, which at present, they argued, contributed to public concerns about the way honours are awarded. The Association of Lord Lieutenants stressed the need "to make the system more agile and responsive to public nominations" and warned that "it can take up to three years for a nominee to be honoured: that is too slow".[43] Peter Stephen, the Lord Lieutenant of the City of Aberdeen, said:

The time it takes for an honour to be considered and any award to be made is far too long. What is the reasoning for this? It only adds to the mystery and lack of clear process.[44]

Sir Garth Morrison, the Lord Lieutenant of East Lothian, described the nomination papers as going into "what appears to be a black hole from which you hear nothing", which caused public concern.[45] The Lord Lieutenant of Northumberland, the Duchess of Northumberland, suggested that increasing the transparency of the honours system would be the single change which would make the most positive difference to the system.[46]

28.  Richard Tilbrook, the Head of the Honours Secretariat at the Cabinet Office, recognised that the honours selection process was "a lengthy process" but said that this was because it was "very robust", with "all sorts of checks on individuals".[47] Such checks included, for example, confirming with the Charity Commission that any charitable work cited was for an official charity, or speaking with professional bodies for the nominee's sector.[48] Sir Bob Kerslake denied that this process was not sufficiently transparent, stating that while discussions about individuals had to be kept private by necessity, "in every other respect, it is an open process".[49]

29.  There remains a lack of transparency about what happens to nominations once submitted, and why it takes so long to consider a nomination. The system is unclear even to the Queen's representatives in the counties, the Lords Lieutenant. The length of time taken to consider nominations, and the lack of clarity about the process and why some nominations are successful, make it harder for members of the public to understand why and how honours are awarded. These concerns are not allayed by the speed at which honours are awarded to celebrities and sports stars. Greater clarity about the chances of success when nominating an individual and how the nomination will be considered would increase public understanding and confidence that the honours system recognises the most deserving individuals in each community.

Honours for "doing the day job"

30.  A persistent concern of witnesses during this inquiry was the number of honours awarded to civil servants and other public sector workers, which was seen as rewarding people simply for doing "the day job". David Briggs, the Lord Lieutenant of Cheshire, told us that in his view there were "people who get honours because of their job and that is it."[50]

31.  Such concern extended to the level of honours received by senior civil servants: Alistair Darling commented that the "usual suspects" at the top of the civil service received knighthoods, while people working in their communities only received MBEs.[51] Lord Digby Jones, the former Director of the Confederation of British Industry and Minister of State for Trade and Investment, commented that automatic honours to civil servants might have been a remnant of a time when such workers did not receive a market rate salary, but that this was not appropriate now wages had increased.[52]

32.  David Lindsay, the Lord Lieutenant of County Down, commented that in the 2012 New Year Honours list, it appeared that only three of the 16 people in County Down who received an honour worked outside the public sector.[53] Mr Lindsay suggested that "while all of those nominated from County Down in this year's list are probably most deserving", public sector workers had a much greater chance than others of receiving an honour.[54] Professor Helen Carty, Deputy Lieutenant of Merseyside, argued that it was:

utterly unreasonable that civil servants should have a higher chance of getting an honour than the general public. They are paid to do their job, have security and do not contribute to those who create wealth.[55]

33.  The issue of honours being awarded for "doing your day job" went wider than just civil servants. Lord Jones, while praising the emphasis given to education in the honours system under the direction of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, noted that it was no different in principle from rewarding a civil servant.[56] Graham Smith of the pressure group Republic argued that in the 2012 New Year Honours List, "the knighthoods were almost entirely for people doing their jobs: mathematicians getting it for doing maths; professors getting it for services to scholarship".[57]

34.  Sir Garth Morrison, the Lord Lieutenant of East Lothian contrasted the "well paid" Chief Executives of NHS Trusts, with people in the voluntary and charitable sector who had not been recognised by the honours system.[58] Sir Garth also argued that officials selecting honours recipients applied "a different standard" when considering state servants compared to nominations of people who volunteered in their local community.[59] He had found that individuals involved in, for example, their local Scout group, would not be considered for an honour unless they could demonstrate additional other work in their community.[60]

35.  The number of honours distributed in the Prime Minister's List is limited to 1,300 in each honours round. Without such limits, Sir Hayden Phillips argued that the "value of recognition [would be] cheapened".[61] As a result of the limit on honours awarded, the award of honours to civil servants and public sector workers has been seen as "crowding out" other candidates for honours. David Briggs, the Lord Lieutenant of Cheshire highlighted the low proportion of honours per capita in the North West. He suggested that London and the south east of England were overrepresented in the honours system because "a lot of Government officers receive awards and they tend to be based in the south east of England".[62]

36.  Sir Bob Kerslake, the Head of the Civil Service and Chair of the Main Honours Committee, insisted that the "policy of getting an honour just for doing the day job has gone".[63] This point was reinforced by Dame Mary Marsh, the Chair of the State Honours Committee, which is responsible for honours to civil servants, who told us that "there is absolutely no automaticity at any level".[64] The proportion of honours awarded to "state servants" fell from 38% in 1955 to 20% in 1992, and then to 18% in 1997 and 15% by 2000.[65] The Committee remains sceptical of this evidence and believes that too many honours are still automatically awarded to senior civil servants.

37.  Sir Bob Kerslake insisted that the same criteria applied to Permanent Secretaries in Whitehall departments as to everyone else who was nominated for an honour: "they have to have achieved something that is exceptional in the delivery of their role and/or exceptional in something that they have done beyond their role"; the same principle which applied, he argued, for a surgeon.[66] Sir Bob also added that several Permanent Secretaries had retired without receiving an honour and that it would be possible to have a Cabinet Secretary or Head of the Civil Service who did not have an honour.[67]

38.  Sir Bob further explained that there were automatic knighthoods and damehoods conferred on High Court Judges on appointment, arguing that such a provision was necessary to avoid a situation in which the judicial work of some judges was rewarded with an honour, but not others, which could, he cautioned, lead to the perception that honours were being distributed to reward the "right" judgment.[68]

39.  We believe that no-one should be honoured for simply "doing the day job", no matter what that job is. In particular, honours should not be awarded to civil servants or businessmen unless it can be demonstrated that there has been service above and beyond the call of duty. Instead honours should only be awarded for exceptional service to the community or exceptional achievement above and beyond that required in employment. This would result in a far higher proportion of honours being awarded to people who devote their time to their local community, instead of politicians, civil servants, and celebrities. There should be no special privileges or quotas for groups of society or certain professions: the honours system should be fair and open to all. Sir Bob Kerslake's insistence that there are no automatic honours for senior public servants is not reflected in the number of honours that have been awarded to civil servants and public sector workers in recent honours lists. Indeed, one such recent example of an apparently automatic honour was the knighthood received by Sir Jeremy Heywood the day before he took up the role of Cabinet Secretary; Lord O'Donnell had no less than four honours as a result of his Civil Service career.

40.  It is distasteful and damaging for people who already command vast personal remuneration packages for doing their job, to also be honoured for simply being at the helm of large companies. This must stop. All who get honours must be judged on whether they have done things above and beyond their normal duty, shown extraordinary leadership and shown extraordinary service to the community.

An honours system open to all?

41.  The Lords Lieutenant who provided evidence to us reported that many people felt excluded from the honours system. David Briggs, the Lord Lieutenant of Cheshire, argued that "a large number of the public are of the view that it [the honours system] is a closed shop and they will not get an honour because they are not posh enough".[69] George Reid, the Lord Lieutenant of Clackmannanshire, reported that there was "little sense that all citizens have a stake in the process and can contribute to it".[70]

42.  Several Lords Lieutenant also suggested that too many honours were awarded to celebrities rather than volunteers and those who serve their local community.[71] Indeed, Cabinet Office polling data revealed that 38% of the public believed that "celebrities were the most likely to receive an honour".[72] Graham Smith, of the pressure group Republic, suggested that the award of honours to celebrities "debases the whole system and devalues the awards".[73]

43.  Sir Bob Kerslake emphasised the outreach work by the Cabinet Office, which aimed to make people think "I know somebody I would want to put forward for it", rather than thinking, "this is not for me; this is stuff I wouldn't be connected to".[74] Richard Tilbrook, Head of the Honours and Appointments Secretariat at the Cabinet Office, provided further details of the outreach activities being done to promote nominations from groups and parts of the country under-represented in the honours list, referring to a national campaign with the Women's Institute, a visit to Sheffield and work with ethnic minority communities.[75] Mr Tilbrook added that the outreach work was aimed at ensuring that the nominations received by the selection committees "accurately represent the population at large". He emphasised, however, that once the nominations were with the Honours Committees, decisions were made "absolutely on merit".[76]

44.  The perception that the honours system is not open to everyone may deter people from nominating deserving candidates for honours. We welcome the outreach work carried out by the Cabinet Office to correct this view, and believe that the changes we have recommended to increase transparency in the honours system will also help to correct this public perception.

Honours and political donations

45.  Witnesses reported a public perception that honours could be "bought" by donations to a political party. George Reid, the Lord Lieutenant of Clackmannanshire, stated that, despite the efforts to separate political donations from honours, "a substantial number of citizens believe there is a link between gifts to political parties and the award of an honour".[77]

46.  The 2012 New Year Honours List awarded a knighthood to a noted philanthropist, Sir Paul Ruddock. The decision received considerable media coverage, which highlighted Sir Paul's past donations to the Conservative Party. Sir Paul provided written evidence to this inquiry which suggested ways to dispel the suggestion of a link between honours and political donations, particularly through the publication of longer citations in the honours list:

I would recommend that more information is included in the New Year Honours List to explain the reasons as to why individuals are being honoured. In my own case, specific details of my contribution to cultural institutions in the UK may have served to dispel the notion that the award was related to political donations. [78]

Sir Paul added:

Fundamentally, the honours system serves a purpose—to recognise individuals for their significant contributions to the society of this country. The more open and transparent the system is as to why these honours are granted, the greater the system will be respected and valued.[79]

47.  There was widespread agreement among our witnesses that there needed to be longer citations setting out why an honour has been awarded. It was argued that doing so would not only help to make clear that a party political donation had not influenced the award of an honour, but would also encourage more people to nominate others to receive honours.[80] John Lidstone, a commentator on the honours system, noted that:

If you read any citation for a VC, an MC or any of those bravery awards, it runs sometimes to 150 words, whereas if you read most of these MBEs, OBEs, CBEs, KBEs, the citation is about four words.[81]

48.  Sir Bob Kerslake agreed that the Honours Secretariat should consider the use of longer citations.[82] He also insisted that making a donation to a political party would not increase the chance of getting an honour, but that it would be unreasonable to exclude donors to political parties from consideration for honours "when they might have achieved something very exceptional in another field".[83]

49.  The perception that honours can be "bought" is a significant threat to the credibility of the honours system. It has even been reported that it is possible to pay a consultancy firm which claims it can "significantly increase" the chances of obtaining an honour.[84] The brevity of the citations in the honours lists, and the lack of accompanying information to explain why an honour has been awarded, does not help to counter concerns that honours have been awarded as a result of making a donation to political parties. We recommend that longer citations be published for all honours at the level of CBE and above in the 2013 New Year Honours List and all future honours lists.

Rewarding philanthropy through the honours system

50.  Graham Smith questioned the priority given in the honours system to rewarding philanthropists, arguing that simply donating a large sum of money to a charity, if you are very wealthy, should not be sufficient to secure an honour. Mr Smith questioned whether large donations by multi-millionaires were more deserving of a knighthood than smaller donations by less-wealthy individuals, particularly if those smaller donations represented a greater proportion of the donor's income or wealth.[85]

51.  The Lords Lieutenant reported contrasting views on the recognition of philanthropy in the honours system. Dr Monica Main, the Lord Lieutenant of Sutherland, argued that "there should be no weighting towards philanthropy as only the very rich can indulge in this pastime".[86] Dione Verulam, the Lord Lieutenant of Hertfordshire, however, argued for greater weight to be placed on philanthropy, arguing that doing so would recognise the generosity of the donor, and encourage further donations.[87]

52.  Dame Mary Marsh, Chair of the Philanthropy Honours Committee, insisted that to be rewarded by the honours system, philanthropists had to have given "time, commitment and sustained engagement with their particular cause [...] and have made a significant difference through their philanthropy".[88] She added:

We are not putting people into the pool simply because they have given a load of money to a particular charity once.[89]

Sir John Parker insisted that the Philanthropy Committee was "very clear that no one should be capable of buying an honour".[90]

53.  It is right that the commitment of philanthropists who donate large sums of money to charities over a sustained period of time should be recognised in the honours system, if this is accompanied with a sustained donation of time and energy. Honours should also be awarded to recognise the contribution of those who donate time but not money to their local communities.

The Lords Lieutenant and the honours system

54.  We heard that the role of the local Lord Lieutenant in the honours system varied depending on the part of the UK, with a very limited role for Lords Lieutenant in Scotland. While all Lords Lieutenant we heard from spoke of their active role in explaining to local communities how the honours system worked and encouraging nominations, their role in considering nominations was, for some, "extremely limited", and much less than the public perceived.[91]

55.  Sir Garth Morrison, the Lord Lieutenant of East Lothian, said he had only been consulted once about a nomination for an honour in his lieutenancy in his 11 years in the role. He viewed this as an "inadequate use" of the intelligence of local Lords Lieutenant and their deputies, whose job it is to be aware of what is happening in their local area.[92] Sir Garth reported that frustration among Lords Lieutenant about their limited role in the honours system was common.[93]

56.  Sir Garth added that the only notice a Lord Lieutenant would receive would consist of a list of the names of local recipients, given in confidence, four or five days before the publication of an honours list. He told us that the contents of the list sometimes came "as a slight surprise", and reported the experience of a fellow Lord Lieutenant who had not been consulted about a local individual nominated for an honour, who was in fact in jail when the award was made.[94] Captain David Younger, the Lord Lieutenant of Tweeddale, concurred that the failure to consult the local Lord Lieutenant had on occasion caused embarrassment.[95]

57.  In contrast, David Briggs, the Lord Lieutenant of Cheshire, said that he, and other Lords Lieutenant in England, had more frequent opportunities to check over the nomination papers for local honours recipients. This role involved checking whether the facts as presented in the nomination were correct and providing further information on the nomination, which was then considered by the Cabinet Office. Mr Briggs told us that he and his deputies went "to some trouble to try to find out whether or not the person who has been nominated merits an award", and on more than half of the nomination papers he received, he commented that the nominee was not deserving of an honour.[96]

58.  As in Scotland, Mr Briggs's opportunity to comment on nominations was restricted to the nominations that crossed departmental boundaries. This meant, the Association of Lord Lieutenants told us, that local Lieutenants did not "see the full picture".[97] Mr Briggs told us that he was not consulted on the "vast majority" of local honours nominations, and said that he "would welcome the opportunity for me and my four committees of Deputy Lieutenants around the county to comment on all [civilian] honours within the county".[98]

59.  The Head of the Honours Secretariat, Richard Tilbrook, clarified that, while in England Lords Lieutenant were consulted on every nomination that fell between two or more Honours Committees, the process for consulting Lords Lieutenant in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was different.[99] There was not, however, a process for consulting Lords Lieutenant on the majority of nominations.

60.  Where comments were sought from Lords Lieutenant, the Cabinet Office insisted that they were taken "very seriously indeed". They did not, however, supersede other comments about a nomination.[100] There was also no support for the suggestion of separate allocations of honours for Lords Lieutenant to distribute, which would be, Sir Bob Kerslake said, a "confusing and odd direction" for the honours system to go in.[101]

61.  The Lords Lieutenant, the Queen's representatives in the counties, link the monarch and the recipients of honours. Their local knowledge could be crucial in ensuring that the most deserving people in each and every community are suitably recognised in the honours system. It is disappointing that the current method of considering nominations for honours, particularly for candidates in Scotland, has not utilised this opportunity fully. We recommend that each Lord Lieutenant has the opportunity to consider and comment on all nominations for an honour within his or her lieutenancy.

Removing the political direction of the honours system

62.  The Cabinet Office stated in its 2008 report on the operation of the honours system that:

Notwithstanding the title of the largest of the Honours Lists, the Prime Minister does not play an active role in the honours process. But, in line with past practice, the Prime Minister gives strategic guidance to the honours committees as to the Government's priorities for honours.[102]

63.  The right of the Prime Minister to set a strategic direction for the honours system, for example by supporting honours for people involved in building the "Big Society", was questioned by several witnesses. Mr Lidstone did not think that any political direction should be placed on the honours system.[103] Alexander Matheson, the Lord Lieutenant of the Western Isles, commented that, despite attempts to depoliticise the honours system, it was "still the case that the public view [it] as still being very much under the control of the political system".[104]

64.  Sir Bob Kerslake described the Prime Minister's direction that "the vast majority of honours [should] go to individuals who have gone beyond excellence in playing their part to create a Big Society" as the exercise of his "right to give a view on policy issues relating to the way the honours system works".[105] This strategic direction was not, however, he insisted about rewarding people who supported a specific Government policy, but instead rewarding people who had made a contribution to their community.[106] Sir Bob added that he did not view the strategic role of the Prime Minister in the honours system to pose a risk of politicisation of the system. He suggested that it would have been a problem if the Prime Minister was "taking decisions on individuals related to politics"; a role which the current Prime Minister, and his two immediate predecessors had declined.[107]

65.  Graham Smith, Chief Executive of the campaign group Republic, recommended removing the Government from any role in the honours system, and instead establishing an independent committee to select honours recipients. This committee, he argued, should be governed by rules set by a cross-party parliamentary committee, independent of Government influence.[108]

66.  Our predecessor Committee, the Public Administration Select Committee in the 2001-2005 Parliament, recommended that:

the honours selection committees should be replaced by an Honours Commission, which would take over from ministers the task of making recommendations to the Queen for honours. It should be established by statute, following the precedent of the Electoral Commission.[109]

67.  The Committee's recommendation was rejected by the then Government, which argued that planned changes to the honours committees would "bring about real improvements in transparency and accountability", and would do so more cost-effectively, and more quickly than the creation of a commission.[110] In his 2004 review of the honours system, Sir Hayden Phillips rejected the proposal to create an independent commission to consider honours nominations as neither "necessary or desirable".[111] He argued that the membership of an independent commission would not vary from that of the Main Honours Committee.[112]

68.  The honours system should be free of political influence. We recommend the removal of the Prime Minister's role in providing strategic direction for the honours system, and the renaming of the "Prime Minister's List". Instead the Government should establish an Independent Honours Commission to oversee the honours system. In 2005 the then Government rejected the recommendation of our predecessor Committee to introduce such a commission, arguing that such an overhaul of the system was not necessary, as plans to reform the membership of the honours committees would improve accountability and transparency in the system. Seven years on, such improvements have been marginal. The creation of an Independent Honours Commission would restore the character and integrity of the honours system.

29   Ev 50 Back

30   Ibid. Back

31   Q 161, Ev w32 Back

32   Q 173 Back

33   Q 254 Back

34   Q 259 Back

35   Q 4 Back

36   Ev w17 Back

37   Cabinet Office, Review of the Honours System, July 2004, p 33 Back

38   "Honours", Direct Gov, Back

39   Ev 48, Ev w21 Back

40   Ev w6 Back

41   Ev w32 Back

42   Ev w32 Back

43   Ev w25 Back

44   Ev w19 Back

45   Q 92 Back

46   Ev w24 Back

47   Q 252 Back

48   Ibid. Back

49   Q 200 Back

50   Q 69 Back

51   Q 111 Back

52   Q 118 Back

53   Ev w2 Back

54   Ibid. Back

55   Ev w13 Back

56   Q 147 Back

57   Q 160 Back

58   Q 6 Back

59   Q 7 Back

60   IbidBack

61   Cabinet Office, Review of the Honours System, July 2004, p 6 Back

62   Q 68 Back

63   Q 203 Back

64   Q 205 Back

65   Cabinet Office, Review of the Honours System, July 2004, p 14 Back

66   Q 281 Back

67   Qq 284, 285 Back

68   Ev 50 Back

69   Q 90 Back

70   Ev w17 Back

71   Ev w13, ev w25, ev w28 Back

72   Ev 50 Back

73   Q 178 Back

74   Q 202 Back

75   Q 200 Back

76   Q 201 Back

77   Ev w18 Back

78   Ev w3 Back

79   Ibid. Back

80   Ev w5,Ev w25, Ev w28, Ev 58, Q3 [David Briggs]  Back

81   Q 177 Back

82   Q 256 Back

83   Q 255 Back

84   "Lord chairs 'cash for honours' firm", The Times, 15 January 2012, p 9 Back

85   Q 163 Back

86   Ev w8 Back

87   Ev w9 Back

88   Q 254 Back

89   Ibid. Back

90   Q 258 Back

91   Qq 20, 21 [Sir Garth Morrison] Back

92   Q 22 Back

93   Q 54 Back

94   Qq 22, 30 Back

95   Ev w1 Back

96   Qq 33- 37 Back

97   Ev w25 Back

98   Q 23 Back

99   Qq 262, 268 Back

100   Q 262 Back

101   Q 267 Back

102   Cabinet Office, Three years of operation of the reformed honours system, 2008, p 4 Back

103   Q 170 Back

104   Ev w15 Back

105   Ev 5, Q 273 Back

106   Q 274 Back

107   Q 277, Cabinet Office, Three years of operation of the reformed honours system, 2008, p 3 Back

108   Q 160 Back

109   Public Administration Select Committee, A Matter Of Honour: Reforming the Honours System, para 168 Back

110   Cabinet Office, Reform of the Honours System, Cm 6479, February 2005, p 5-6 Back

111   Cabinet Office, Review of the Honours System, July 2004, p 37 Back

112   Ibid.  Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2012
Prepared 29 August 2012