3 Increasing public trust in the honours
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.
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viewed the honours system as "out-of-date" from 40%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.
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. Graham Smith,
Chief Executive of the pressure group Republic, believed that
that the public viewed the honours system as "widely abused".
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%.
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
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".
The Lord Lieutenant of Clackmannanshire, George Reid, cautioned
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.
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".
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".
Our witnesses were concerned that offering higher honours
for work at a national level elevated such work above devotion
to the local community.
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.
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. Mr
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.
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".
Peter Stephen, the Lord Lieutenant of the City of Aberdeen,
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.
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. 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.
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".
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
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
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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".
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".
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".
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".
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.
The Committee remains sceptical of this evidence and believes
that too many honours are still automatically awarded to senior
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.
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
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.
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".
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".
42. Several Lords Lieutenant also suggested that
too many honours were awarded to celebrities rather than volunteers
and those who serve their local community.
Indeed, Cabinet Office polling data revealed that 38% of
the public believed that "celebrities were the most likely
to receive an honour".
Graham Smith, of the pressure group Republic, suggested that the
award of honours to celebrities "debases the whole system
and devalues the awards".
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".
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.
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".
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
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
Sir Paul added:
Fundamentally, the honours system serves a purposeto
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.
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.
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.
48. Sir Bob Kerslake agreed that the Honours
Secretariat should consider the use of longer citations.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
We are not putting people into
the pool simply because they have given a load of money to a particular
Sir John Parker insisted that the Philanthropy Committee
was "very clear that no one should be capable of buying an
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
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.
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.
Sir Garth reported that frustration among Lords Lieutenant
about their limited role in the honours system was common.
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.
Captain David Younger, the Lord Lieutenant of Tweeddale, concurred
that the failure to consult the local Lord Lieutenant had on occasion
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
He argued that the membership of an independent commission would
not vary from that of the Main Honours Committee.
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
Q 161, Ev w32 Back
Q 173 Back
Q 254 Back
Q 259 Back
Q 4 Back
Ev w17 Back
Cabinet Office, Review of the Honours System, July 2004,
p 33 Back
"Honours", Direct Gov, www.direct.gov.uk Back
Ev 48, Ev w21 Back
Ev w6 Back
Ev w32 Back
Ev w32 Back
Ev w25 Back
Ev w19 Back
Q 92 Back
Ev w24 Back
Q 252 Back
Q 200 Back
Q 69 Back
Q 111 Back
Q 118 Back
Ev w2 Back
Ev w13 Back
Q 147 Back
Q 160 Back
Q 6 Back
Q 7 Back
Cabinet Office, Review of the Honours System, July 2004,
p 6 Back
Q 68 Back
Q 203 Back
Q 205 Back
Cabinet Office, Review of the Honours System, July 2004,
p 14 Back
Q 281 Back
Qq 284, 285 Back
Ev 50 Back
Q 90 Back
Ev w17 Back
Ev w13, ev w25, ev w28 Back
Ev 50 Back
Q 178 Back
Q 202 Back
Q 200 Back
Q 201 Back
Ev w18 Back
Ev w3 Back
Ev w5,Ev w25, Ev w28, Ev 58, Q3 [David Briggs] Back
Q 177 Back
Q 256 Back
Q 255 Back
"Lord chairs 'cash for honours' firm", The Times,
15 January 2012, p 9 Back
Q 163 Back
Ev w8 Back
Ev w9 Back
Q 254 Back
Q 258 Back
Qq 20, 21 [Sir Garth Morrison] Back
Q 22 Back
Q 54 Back
Qq 22, 30 Back
Ev w1 Back
Qq 33- 37 Back
Ev w25 Back
Q 23 Back
Qq 262, 268 Back
Q 262 Back
Q 267 Back
Cabinet Office, Three years of operation of the reformed honours
system, 2008, p 4 Back
Q 170 Back
Ev w15 Back
Ev 5, Q 273 Back
Q 274 Back
Q 277, Cabinet Office, Three years of operation of the reformed
honours system, 2008, p 3 Back
Q 160 Back
Public Administration Select Committee, A Matter Of Honour:
Reforming the Honours System, para 168 Back
Cabinet Office, Reform of the Honours System, Cm 6479,
February 2005, p 5-6 Back
Cabinet Office, Review of the Honours System, July 2004,
p 37 Back