Civil Service: Politicisation

Lord Wilson of Dinton Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moore. He is a great biographer and a great journalist; I often read him, and he is sometimes right. It is also a great honour to have followed the noble Lord, Lord Butler, both in the job of Cabinet Secretary and now in this important debate. In the brief time, I shall say limited things and express unease. I feel deeply uneasy. You know as you get older that you will get uneasy with the world, but I am worried that I am right.

I feel passionate about the concept of the Civil Service set out in the Northcote-Trevelyan report. I will read it because it deserves to be read out. It says that

“the Government of the country could not be carried on without the aid of an efficient body of permanent officers, occupying a position duly subordinate to that of the Ministers who are directly responsible to the Crown and to Parliament, yet possessing sufficient independence, character, ability and experience to be able to advise, assist, and, to some extent, influence, those who are from time to time set over them”.

That model stands now, and I hold to it. I argue passionately against changing anything that increases political involvement in open competition and appointment on merit.

However, it is worth remembering that, even when Northcote-Trevelyan was implemented, it was opposed by some people who thought that patronage was a good thing. Disraeli was strongly opposed to the creation of the Civil Service Commission. He invented the post of First Civil Service Commissioner for a friend of his who needed money and was hard up. He got a post in the Treasury, through a loophole, for a Mr Maude, whom Queen Victoria wanted to get into the Treasury. He argued that patronage—that is, political appointments—was

“the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, and that is Power”.

I do not hear in this debate a wish to alter that. I hear a wish for more ministerial involvement in appointments.

All I wanted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Maude, was, “Come and talk to me. I can deal with this. This doesn’t require major changes of procedure and code; it requires a chat”. When I was Cabinet Secretary, I could have dealt with him amicably.

Looking around the Chamber during this debate, I have seen 11 Cabinet Ministers of different parties whom I have worked for. I do not think they have any idea what my own political views are. The joy of the Civil Service is the ability to take a Minister as your client, to work for them and to give them your very best support to make things happen, whatever their political allegiance. Politics is a bit of a nuisance.

None the less, I have to say that I am worried at the moment. I think No. 10 is going awry. The skill of the Civil Service with an incoming Government is to enable them to appear to have been in power even when they are learning the job, but that has not happened. That is a sign that the balance is wrong—the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is right.

More generally, the job of Governments and Ministers is more difficult than it used to be, if only because of social media, where you have to comment all the time rather than stopping, thinking and taking advice. The job of the Civil Service is weakening because of Brexit, which was a huge blow in terms of management, followed in no time by the pandemic. The loss of people at the top has been very bad: Tom Scholar is the worst, but there have been others that are pretty bad.

I am out of time so I must sit down. I could speak at greater length, but my view is that we need a royal commission on the Civil Service. Too many things are going wrong. I could give the House a longer list, but the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, spelled out some worrying things. HR management is going wrong, as are many other things. This debate should be the prelude to a more serious look at what is happening.