The so-called “purge” of departmental non-executives must not extend to public bodies

Henry Newman, a former Francis Maude (and Boris Johnson and Michael Gove) adviser, is sounding off on his new substack  ¹⁰ https://whitehallproject.substack.com/  about the fact that new ministers are terminating the appointments of departmental non-executives. These are positions that were the brainchild of Maude himself in the coalition government, with the theory was that they would bring people with experience outside government in to help ministers run their departments – particularly in areas of notorious weakness, such as big contract management, project implementation and change programmes. The presumption was that most would have a business background.  

In practice, while there were some high profile appointments of people with impressive business track records, the appointment process was very ad hoc and personal to individual secretaries of state. Some positions were advertised, others not. Some appointees were already very aligned with the secretaries of state who appointed them, some were former special advisers, and some went on to become Ministers. The system reached its nadir with Matt Hancock’s appointment of his university friend Gina Coladangelo as a departmental NED.  

Some secretaries of state made good use of their boards. Others regarded them as an inconvenient imposition from the centre. Some board members have undoubtedly been significant and valuable  contributors. Some less so. When Michael Gove became justice secretary in 2015 he summarily dumped all the NEDs who had served on the board under his predecessor Chris Grayling. The Conservative government only conceded recently that these appointments should come under the oversight of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Francis Maude’s reform of departmental boards is a case study in poor reform 

Talk of a “purge” is overblown and distracts from other areas where the government is stretching the rules

So it is hardly a surprise that a new set of ministers looks askance at these people – and in some cases has asked them all to stand down to be replaced by people they want to appoint. These are only advisory roles and have no statutory status – and a non-executive's ability to do the job depends crucially on the secretary of state having confidence in their advice. If you have won an election on the basis that the last government was incompetent, it seems reasonable to question whether they had the right people advising ministers.  

That said, there is a case for continuity and secretaries of state should be considering whether there are any of the last government’s non-executives they want to see carry on. One option that might be worth considering is establishing that departmental NEDs were all stood down automatically on a change of government – but were asked to indicate whether they wanted to reapply. That would avoid any over the top language about “purges” while ensuring ministers could have non-executives whose advice they would value.  

Having attacked cronyism under the last government, this government should go through more transparent processes to appoint its replacement non-executives. And it should stick to the previous government’s commitment to have that process regulated by the Commissioner on Public Appointments.  

But it is wrong to brigade these changes, as Newman does, with some of the appointments to senior civil service that the new government is making via exceptions to the normal recruitment process. This government, like its predecessor, is being caught by its desire to bring in more trusted advisers while refusing publicly to be seen expanding the number of special advisers. Again, transparency is better.  

Chair and board appointments to public bodies are different and the government needs to show it understands that

There is a big difference between the status of these non-executive board members who have no formal responsibilities and the legions of chairs and board members who run the wide range of public bodies that have been established over decades. Those people have been appointed through regulated processes to perform important functions and their bodies are at arm’s length precisely to allow them to function with a degree of independence from ministers.  There have been a couple of instances so far where a chair has stepped down (in the case of the Office for Students  ¹¹ https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/press-and-media/office-for-students-chair/  ) or where the secretary of state has started proceedings to dismiss the chair (the Criminal Cases Review Board  ¹² https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ccrc-apologises-to-malkinson-following-investigation/5120391.article  ).  

Over time, as terms expire, ministers will have the opportunity to change all these board appointments. They should certainly have all meetings with the chairs of their most significant public bodies to help them understand changed priorities – and that may trigger a few departures. But if these bodies are to work properly, ministers need to avoid the temptation to cull people who have taken on these important roles simply because they were appointed by the previous government.