Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many residents in the Combined Mayoral Authority of South Yorkshire received an award above the level of MBE in the Birthday Honours 2023 list.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Statistical information held in relation to the regional breakdown of recipients at all levels on The King’s Birthday Honours List 2023 can be found below. Percentages are rounded to 1 decimal point. Data for CBE and higher levels has been aggregated and is also included below. Data reflects the correspondence address provided by recipients.
Data is collected using county data and aggregated into regional figures. Information on the number of nominations by mayoral region, including for both South Yorkshire and Sheffield is not captured, as we are unable to break down the data in that way. Transparency data for the list by county is available on gov.uk.
This data relates only to the main Prime Minister’s List and does not include data from the Defence List or the Overseas and International List, which are not administered by the Cabinet Office.
Honours are awarded on merit basis. A key aim of the honours system is to ensure that it is more representative of the country as a whole and we will continue to encourage more nominations from every corner of the UK in future honours lists.
Regional breakdown - King’s Birthday Honours List 2023
Region | BEM | BEM% | MBE | MBE% | OBE | OBE% | CBE & Higher | CBE & higher% | Total | Population % |
East | 30 | 2.7% | 28 | 2.5% | 17 | 1.5% | 13 | 1.1% | 88 | 9.3% |
Yorkshire & Humberside | 26 | 2.3% | 25 | 2.2% | 17 | 1.5% | 4 | 0.3% | 72 | 8.2% |
London | 40 | 3.5% | 101 | 9% | 58 | 5.2% | 46 | 4.1% | 245 | 13.4% |
North East | 9 | 0.8% | 14 | 1.2% | 1 | 0.08% | 3 | 0.2% | 27 | 4.0% |
North West | 29 | 2.6% | 43 | 4% | 17 | 1.5% | 3 | 0.2% | 92 | 11.0% |
Northern Ireland | 31 | 2.8% | 30 | 2.7% | 7 | 0.6% | 4 | 0.3% | 72 | 2.8% |
Scotland | 26 | 2.3% | 39 | 3.5% | 17 | 1.5% | 12 | 1% | 94 | 8.2% |
South East | 50 | 4.5% | 68 | 6% | 51 | 4.5% | 17 | 1.5% | 186 | 13.7% |
South West | 24 | 2.1% | 40 | 3.6% | 10 | 0.9% | 13 | 1.1% | 87 | 8.4% |
Wales | 9 | 0.8% | 20 | 1.8% | 11 | 1% | 3 | 0.2% | 43 | 4.7% |
West Midlands | 24 | 2.1% | 27 | 2.4% | 11 | 1% | 9 | 0.8% | 71 | 8.9% |
East Midlands | 15 | 1.3% | 15 | 1.3% | 10 | 0.9% | 3 | 0.2% | 43 | 7.2% |
Living abroad | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.08% | - | - | 1 | - |
Total | 332 |
| 471 |
| 236 |
| 132 |
| 1,121 |
|
Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many honours, by each award level, were received in each region or nation of the UK in the Birthday Honours 2023; and what is their estimate of the percentage of the population of each such region or nation that number represents.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Statistical information held in relation to the regional breakdown of recipients at all levels on The King’s Birthday Honours List 2023 can be found below. Percentages are rounded to 1 decimal point. Data for CBE and higher levels has been aggregated and is also included below. Data reflects the correspondence address provided by recipients.
Data is collected using county data and aggregated into regional figures. Information on the number of nominations by mayoral region, including for both South Yorkshire and Sheffield is not captured, as we are unable to break down the data in that way. Transparency data for the list by county is available on gov.uk.
This data relates only to the main Prime Minister’s List and does not include data from the Defence List or the Overseas and International List, which are not administered by the Cabinet Office.
Honours are awarded on merit basis. A key aim of the honours system is to ensure that it is more representative of the country as a whole and we will continue to encourage more nominations from every corner of the UK in future honours lists.
Regional breakdown - King’s Birthday Honours List 2023
Region | BEM | BEM% | MBE | MBE% | OBE | OBE% | CBE & Higher | CBE & higher% | Total | Population % |
East | 30 | 2.7% | 28 | 2.5% | 17 | 1.5% | 13 | 1.1% | 88 | 9.3% |
Yorkshire & Humberside | 26 | 2.3% | 25 | 2.2% | 17 | 1.5% | 4 | 0.3% | 72 | 8.2% |
London | 40 | 3.5% | 101 | 9% | 58 | 5.2% | 46 | 4.1% | 245 | 13.4% |
North East | 9 | 0.8% | 14 | 1.2% | 1 | 0.08% | 3 | 0.2% | 27 | 4.0% |
North West | 29 | 2.6% | 43 | 4% | 17 | 1.5% | 3 | 0.2% | 92 | 11.0% |
Northern Ireland | 31 | 2.8% | 30 | 2.7% | 7 | 0.6% | 4 | 0.3% | 72 | 2.8% |
Scotland | 26 | 2.3% | 39 | 3.5% | 17 | 1.5% | 12 | 1% | 94 | 8.2% |
South East | 50 | 4.5% | 68 | 6% | 51 | 4.5% | 17 | 1.5% | 186 | 13.7% |
South West | 24 | 2.1% | 40 | 3.6% | 10 | 0.9% | 13 | 1.1% | 87 | 8.4% |
Wales | 9 | 0.8% | 20 | 1.8% | 11 | 1% | 3 | 0.2% | 43 | 4.7% |
West Midlands | 24 | 2.1% | 27 | 2.4% | 11 | 1% | 9 | 0.8% | 71 | 8.9% |
East Midlands | 15 | 1.3% | 15 | 1.3% | 10 | 0.9% | 3 | 0.2% | 43 | 7.2% |
Living abroad | - | - | - | - | 1 | 0.08% | - | - | 1 | - |
Total | 332 |
| 471 |
| 236 |
| 132 |
| 1,121 |
|
Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the (1) political affiliation, and (2) current geographic location, where known, for all living recipients of Companions of Honour.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
(1) All Companions of Honour nominations are assessed by one of ten expert independent honours committees on the basis of merit. The political affiliation(s) of each prospective nominee is not taken into consideration during this independent process and therefore this information is not collected by the government.
Current recipients of the prestigious Companions of Honour include those who have made a major contribution to the arts, science, medicine or government lasting over a significant period of time.
(2) We do not collect the information requested on the current geographic locations for all 63 living recipients of Companions of Honour.
Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they made of the impact of the change to the criteria for access to the Cabinet Office's Summer Diversity Internship Programme; and what consultation was undertaken.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Fast Stream and Emerging Talent (FSET) have introduced a new Summer Internship Programme (SIP) and in doing so broadened the eligibility criteria so that people from all backgrounds can now apply for internship opportunities - thus acknowledging a wider definition of diversity in line with the CS D&I Strategy. The separate eligibility strand for disabled applicants has been removed based on consistent performance evidence showing that disabled applicants have a higher success rate than non-disabled applicants for the Fast Stream. Nevertheless disabled applicants are still able and encouraged to apply to the SIP. Eligibility for the Fast Stream graduate programme is not affected in terms of disability.
This decision, in respect to disability, was based on a substantial internal review of disability outcomes for the Fast Stream graduate programme (for which the internship is a feeder scheme). An equality impact assessment was completed also based on the review. Due to changes to our selection process and associated performance of those with a disability and strong inclusive brand we anticipate there will be minimal impact.
The review highlighted that disabled candidates at Fast Stream selection no longer demonstrated under-representation, as was previously the case. There has been strong disability representation at the Fast Stream appointment stage - at 25.5% in 2021 and 22.7% in 2022, against a higher education (HESA) university population benchmark of 17.1%.
In respect to consultation, we have liaised on this decision with Fast Stream scheme holders, SIP SPOCs, Government Legal and the CS Inclusive Practice team.
We previously removed the SDIP disability strand in 2011 when representation exceeded our benchmark.
We will continually monitor outcomes to ensure an inclusive, fair and evidence based approach for all centrally coordinated early talent programmes.
Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what impact evaluation they have undertaken of the exclusion of disability from the eligibility criteria for entry and progress in the Civil Service Fast-Stream.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Fast Stream and Emerging Talent (FSET) have introduced a new Summer Internship Programme (SIP) and in doing so broadened the eligibility criteria so that people from all backgrounds can now apply for internship opportunities - thus acknowledging a wider definition of diversity in line with the CS D&I Strategy. The separate eligibility strand for disabled applicants has been removed based on consistent performance evidence showing that disabled applicants have a higher success rate than non-disabled applicants for the Fast Stream. Nevertheless disabled applicants are still able and encouraged to apply to the SIP. Eligibility for the Fast Stream graduate programme is not affected in terms of disability.
This decision, in respect to disability, was based on a substantial internal review of disability outcomes for the Fast Stream graduate programme (for which the internship is a feeder scheme). An equality impact assessment was completed also based on the review. Due to changes to our selection process and associated performance of those with a disability and strong, inclusive brand we anticipate there will be minimal impact.
The review highlighted that disabled candidates at Fast Stream selection no longer demonstrated under-representation, as was previously the case. There has been strong disability representation at the Fast Stream appointment stage - at 25.5% in 2021 and 22.7% in 2022, against a higher education (HESA) university population benchmark of 17.1%.
In respect to consultation, we have liaised on this decision with Fast Stream scheme holders, SIP SPOCs, Government Legal and the CS Inclusive Practice team.
We previously removed the SDIP disability strand in 2011 when representation exceeded our benchmark.
We will continually monitor outcomes to ensure an inclusive, fair and evidence based approach for all centrally coordinated early talent programmes.
Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 8 November (HL2955), what criteria they used to decide which privy councillors would be given ex officio status and were therefore invited to attend the Accession Council on the 10 September.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The criteria for ex-officio eligibility to attend the Accession Council was based primarily on whether Privy Counsellors were serving in a senior parliamentary, judicial or Church post at the time of Demise. This was the most practical way to reflect the fact that the role of the Privy Council is to advise on the exercise of prerogative powers and certain functions assigned to The King and the Council by Act of Parliament.
There are over 720 Privy Counsellors but only those currently serving in senior parliamentary, judicial and Church roles play an active role in Privy Council business. The majority of Privy Counsellors have no active involvement in Privy Council business; some Counsellors have not been actively involved in Privy Council business for decades.
Additional criteria used to determine ex-officio eligibility included:
Privy Counsellors who were senior, full-time Members of the Royal Household at the time of Demise.
Former office holders who had a close working relationship with the Sovereign (former Prime Ministers, Archbishops and Lord Presidents).
Former opposition leaders (representing Privy Counsellors from all political parties who no longer have an active role in Privy Council business).
Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer from Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 1 November (HL3037), who at Number 10 was involved in the decision not to summon all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council; and what position was held by any such individual at the time.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The decision from Number 10 was made by the Prime Minister in office at the time (The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP).
Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 24 October (HL2522), what criteria were used to restrict the number of Privy Councillors eligible to attend the Accession Council on the 10 September to the figure used.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The exact number of Privy Counsellors eligible to be summonsed to the Accession Council on 10th September 2022 was determined in accordance with revised attendance arrangements set out in a letter from the Clerk of the Council to Privy Counsellors in March 2022. The majority of Privy Counsellors were selected on an ex officio basis. In addition, a small number of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis were selected via an annual ballot.
Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 24 October (HL2390), how many members of the House of Lords were present at the Accession Council on the 10 September, broken down by (1) the Conservative, (2) Labour, (3) Crossbench, and (4) Liberal Democrat, benches.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The published list of attendees at the Accession Council held on 10th September 2022 is available on the Privy Council website, and can be found here. This includes both members of the House of Lords and non-members. Attendees were identified on an ex-officio basis, or by ballot, and we do not hold a separate list identifying those who were members of the House of Lords or their affiliates.
The Privy Council Office does not record information relating to past or present political party memberships held by Privy Counsellors.
Asked by: Lord Blunkett (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 24 October (HL2521), who, other than the Leader of the House of Commons and the President of the Council, was involved in taking the decision to reduce the Accession Council to 200 attendees on 10 September.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The decision not to summon all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council was taken on the advice of the Privy Council Office and with the collective agreement of the Lord President and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice.