Working to make government more effective

Comment

The government’s approach to civil service appointments has been an unforced error

There are clear and established ways for ministers to bring in outside expertise into government.

Whitehall, London

The decision to bring politically aligned individuals into government outside of the usual routes poses risks to the impartiality of the civil service, says Hannah White

New ministers suddenly find themselves surrounded by thousands of unfamiliar faces – civil servants who, a few hours earlier, were working for their political opponents. Unsure of the capabilities of their new officials and concerned that their success or failure depends on people they neither know nor trust, new ministers often want to bring in their own support. They may want political advice from ideological fellow travellers, or to retain the services of expert advisers who know their mind and have shaped their thinking. This is not only perfectly appropriate but, with the right people brought in, it makes government more effective. 

There is a range of well-established routes for ministers to recruit such outside support. Secretaries of state and some other ministers can appoint special advisers (SpAds) – political appointees who have become a standard feature of British government over decades. They have been supplemented with policy advisers (PADs). This is a more ambiguous role than a SpAd, and one that has been ill-defined for some time, but PADs tend to be ministerially-appointed civil servants based in a minister’s office for a time-limited period to advise on particular issues. Direct ministerial appointments are a further time-limited option and can be used, for example, to appoint someone to lead an independent review, or galvanise the government around an issue as a “tsar”. 

Different roles will require different types of appointment. But they are all clear, established ways for ministers to bring in external support and expertise. None risk undermining the principles that underpin what all political parties say they value – a permanent and expert civil service ready to serve whoever forms the government of the day. The government, however, has made an early mistake by attempting to side-step established recruitment practices.

Labour has boxed itself in with its approach to bringing in outsiders

Like its predecessors, this government appears to be sensitive to accusations that it is appointing too many special or policy advisers – perhaps conscious that this would run counter to its mantra of fiscal discipline, sensitive to public opinion on the cost of politics, or because it wants to keep SpAd appointments below the number brought in by Rishi Sunak.
 
Yet this desire to constrain the volume of appointments made through established routes has crashed into a competing desire to bring in the external advisers who worked with the party in opposition. The release valve has been a series of work-arounds. The government has brought certain individuals into civil service roles using the ‘exceptions process’, which allows time-limited appointments without competition.  

Some of these exceptions haven’t raised an eyebrow: for example, expert former public servants being appointed in health and energy policy. The problems come where appointments have been made to those affiliated with, who have worked for, or who have donated to the party.

The government should have appointed politically aligned outsiders as SpAds or PADs

It undermines the principle of merit – core to an impartial civil service – if ministers appear to freely give jobs to political allies without fair and open competition.  The exceptions process should be just that – exceptional. It should not be a backdoor for political appointments. 

There are times where it is appropriate for ministers to bring in exceptional appointments into the civil service. There are a range of factors to weigh in judging the appropriateness of taking this route. The candidate’s political background, political donations, expertise and experience all matter. As do the seniority of the job, the sensitivity of the policy area, and how urgent it is to fill the gap. 

Someone needs to make a judgement. It shouldn’t be ministers. It should be the Civil Service Commission and the information they use to reach a decision should be made transparent. The seniority bar for its involvement should be lower where there's a candidate with a political background. The IfG has previously argued that exceptions to normal civil service recruitment processes are valuable, important and should even be used more often in some circumstances to bring talent and experience into government.  

Nonetheless, some of these exceptional appointments look better suited to either SpAd or PAD roles, rather than standard civil service jobs. For those with political backgrounds who are nonetheless better suited to standard civil service jobs, none of the appointments seem so urgent as to be unable to wait for a rapid recruitment process to be run. 

It is not apparent what civil service advice was given to ministers, but the consequences of exceptional civil service appointments of politically aligned individuals should have been made clear and alternatives recommended.  The established routes protect the civil service from politicisation and ministers from the appearance of impropriety, particularly where in-kind or financial donations are part of the picture. Neither objective has been met by this approach, which is all the more unfortunate given Keir Starmer’s focus on ethics and propriety during the election campaign. 

An impartial civil service matters. It is an asset to ministers and an asset to the country. Short circuiting the recruitment practices, designed to ensure appointment on merit and protect impartiality, is a mistake.

Political party
Labour
Department
HM Treasury
Publisher
Institute for Government

Related content