100 Accepted

Posthumous honours forfeiture policy

IICSA · Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse Linked to Westminster Investigation Report · Issued 25 February 2020 · Addressed to: Cabinet Office

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation, I

The Cabinet Office should re-examine the policy on posthumous forfeiture, in order to consider the perspectives of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

IICSA, Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse Linked to Westminster Investigation Report · 25 Feb 2020 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:

- In September 2021, the Cabinet Office updated its guidance on honours forfeiture to allow for a formal statement to be published where a forfeiture had taken place posthumously (Government Response, Cabinet Office, September 2021).
- In May 2023, the government confirmed that the Cabinet Office had re-examined the policy on posthumous forfeiture, considering the perspectives of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse (Government Response to IICSA Final Report, HM Government, May 2023).

Response — verbatim from government

UK Government

On 30 September 2021, the Cabinet Office updated its guidance in relation to honours forfeiture. The policy allows for a formal statement to be published in instances where forfeiture proceedings would have been initiated if the deceased recipient was living and convicted in a court of law.

UK Government · 22 May 2023 Written response →

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

No published activity has been recorded against this recommendation yet.

Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.

How this page is built

Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.

This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.