Honours system to be reviewed after embarrassing leaks

A review of the way honours are awarded is to be conducted urgently by the Government after a series of embarrassing leaks showed some candidates are rewarded simply to "add interest" to the list.

The Cabinet Office confirmed yesterday it would overhaul the approval system by next year and would bring in a new "independent" element to ensure greater openness.

A government whistleblower had claimed the 700-year-old system was tainted by an obsession with presentation. Leaked documents revealed that Tim Henman, the England tennis player, is being considered for an honour because he will "add interest". The leading scientist Colin Blakemore was snubbed because of his "controversial" views on the vivisection of animals.

Professor Blakemore, the new head of the Medical Research Council, (MRC) last night demanded written reassurance from the Science minister, Lord Sainsbury, that the Government would back scientists who spoke out in favour of animal research.

The escalating confrontation, in which Professor Blakemore is threatening to resign from the post which he started only on 1 October, has increased pressure on the secretive honours approval system.

He said last night that part of the reason he was insisting on a written confirmation before withdrawing his threat was that he had clearly been rejected because officials thought that was what ministers would wish.

Lord Sainsbury confirmed the Government's commitment yesterday morning, saying: "It is quite clear the Government both admires and fully supports those on the front line who have stood up to animal rights extremists." But Professor Blakemore said last night: "I want [the minister's letter] in print, so I can cite it when dealing with anti-vivisectionists, who will say this decision showed the Government is against what I do."

During the day, he was also contacted by the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, and other senior ministers are expected to make their backing clear in the next few days.

Last night the Cabinet Office, which has come under pressure for a review from the influential House of Commons public administration committee, issued a statement confirming it was looking again at who sits on the Whitehall committees who choose candidates for honours.

Several committees consider successful figures from areas such as the arts, science and sport for honours. The lists of honours for candidates are sent to the Prime Minister, who chooses the names and forwards the list to the Queen.

MPs have criticised the honours system for being outdated and shrouded in secrecy. It follows an internal government report, seen by The Independent, which showed women and ethnic minorities are still severely under-represented.

Last night the Government said it planned to open the system up. "Work is in hand to review the structure and membership of the honours committees," a Cabinet Office spokesman said.

"This work will conclude in the next few months, allowing changes to be made next year. The aim is to provide greater transparency and a greater independent input to the honours process while protecting the confidentiality of individual honours candidates and recipients, and of members of the assessment committees."

Professor Blakemore learnt at the weekend that he was turned down for an honour over his outspoken defence of the experiments he has carried out on animals, although other scientists who have also performed similar experiments have received titles. He said that this made a mockery of the MRC's public commitment to engaging with the public over contentious scientific issues.

The revelation has put pressure on Sir Hayden Phillips, the private secretary of the Department of Constitutional Affairs. He chairs the Cabinet Office committee of civil servants which vets names picked by independent outsiders.

The scientist's name was rejected by Sir Hayden's committee after being approved in the earlier stages, the Cabinet Office confirmed yesterday.

Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat who is Professor Blakemore's MP, called for an inquiry. "Such Whitehall committees do not work in isolation from their political masters," he said. "It is the fault of ministers that these civil servants were so clearly of the view that due recognition for Professor Blakemore and his colleagues was politically unacceptable and it is now down to ministers to correct that view publicly."