Appendix 2
Letter from Mr Bernard Jenkin MP, Chair, to the
Prime Minister, dated 13 September 2012
Thank you for your letter of 6th September
2012 concerning that you are "minded to recommend" certain
honours to HM The Queen for some of those who left the Government
last week. While I have no doubt that you have acted "on
careful advice", the Public Administration Select Committee
(PASC) is perplexed and disillusioned by this decision.
As you know, PASC published our report into the honours
system just a few days ago. During our inquiry, I wrote to you
(in May 2012) to ask you, or one of your ministers, to provide
oral evidence to this inquiry. Regrettably you decided to decline
this invitation. The response from your Principal Private Secretary
asserted that there is "no direct ministerial responsibility
for it" [the honours system] and that Sir Bob Kerslake was
"best placed to give evidence" on the honours system. Sir
Bob Kerslake, the Head of the Civil Service, also stressed the
Government's commitment to keeping politics out of the honours
system, and sought to reassure PASC that the new Parliamentary
and Political Service Committee would not be used by the Whips
as a vehicle for patronage. Moreover he emphasised that honours
should not be awarded for "doing the day job" and on
this basis our Report recommended that honours should only be
awarded for public service "above and beyond the call of
duty". There was nothing to indicate that you might circumvent
this new arrangement at any point.
The award of honours to ministers who have lost their
jobs in a Government reshuffle appears inconsistent with the evidence
we received from the Government. If it is the policy of the Government
that the Prime Minister should retain the right to award honours
at his personal behest, why was this not apparent from the Government's
submissions to our inquiry? The honours you have announced may
well reward "exceptional service", but there is a danger
that they will appear to the public to be political "consolation
prizes" for the ministers concerned.
The PASC report makes a number of recommendations
to increase public confidence in the honours system. In responding
to the Report it would be helpful if the Government will also
clarify how the honours for retiring ministers on the personal
recommendation of the Prime Minister is consistent with Government's
policy on the de-politicisation of the honours system.
Letter from the Prime Minister to Mr Bernard Jenkin
MP, Chair, dated 19 October 2012
Thank you for your letter of 13 September, regarding
the Public Administration Select Committee's (PASC) report on
the Honours System. I also very much welcomed our recent meeting
and having the opportunity to discuss this in person with you.
I have since met with The Lord Spicer too.
As I set out in my letter to you of 6 September,
I am clear that the Political and Parliamentary Honours Committee,
under the Chairmanship of The Lord Spicer, will continue to take
all decisions regarding the merit and propriety of political and
Parliamentary candidates proposed for Honours in Her Majesty The
Queen's Birthday Honours List, and in the New Year List. Furthermore,
I remain keen that the Committee considers Honours beyond Parliamentarians,
also looking to recognise the service of those who have made a
wider contribution to political and public life, supporting political
figures, Parties and Associations at the local level.
The Committee has already recommended some outstanding
nominations in this regard, and I am in no doubt that they will
continue to do so. My decision to recommend a very limited number
of Honours following my Ministerial changes does not in any way
devalue that work. As I made clear in my previous letter, I am
determined that these special cases will not affect the integrity
of the wider Honours system in general, and the Political and
Parliamentary Honours Committee in particular. I will, of course,
address this issue further when the Government publishes its response
to the recommendations laid out in the PASC's recent report on
the Honours system.
Letter from the Prime Minister to Mr Bernard Jenkin
MP, Chair, dated 25 October 2012
I am writing to thank you for your Committee's report
on the Honours System. I attach the Government's response: you
will see that we are keen to pick up a number of your recommendations,
including publishing longer citations for the highest honours
and making more effective use of the Lord-Lieutenants. But there
are others, such as the proposal to create an independent Honours
Commission, where we believe that the reforms already introduced
make such a development necessary.
I wrote last week to address the concerns you had
about my decision to recommend a number of Knighthoods to retiring
Ministers following the recent reshuffle. I said I would address
this issue further when the Government set out its response to
the PASC report. I am therefore attaching a copy of my letter
to Lord Spicer, which I hope clarifies the position.
Letter from the Prime Minister to the Lord Spicer
dated 3 October 2012
I very much welcomed our recent meeting to clarify
the process by which political and Parliamentary Honours are awarded.
I acknowledge that it is unfortunate that the timings of my recent
Ministerial changes - coming at a time when you were away - meant
that we were not able to meet before Ministerial resignation Honours
were announced.
As I set out in my letter to you on 6 September,
I am clear that the Political and Parliamentary Honours Committee,
under your Chairmanship, will continue to take all decisions regarding
the merit and propriety of political and Parliamentary candidates
proposed for Honours in Her Majesty The Queen's Birthday Honours
List, and in the New Year List. Furthermore, I remain keen that
the Committee considers Honours beyond Parliamentarians, also
looking to recognise the service of those who have made a wider
contribution to political and public life, supporting political
figures, Parties and Associations at the local level.
The Committee has already recommended some outstanding
nominations in this regard, and I hope you will continue to do
so. My decision to recommend a very limited number of Honours
following my Ministerial changes does not in any way devalue that
work. As I made clear in my previous letter, I am determined that
these special cases will not affect the integrity of the wider
Honours system in general, and your Committee in particular.
| 
