Civil Service: Politicisation

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for securing this debate on a matter of great importance to the effective functioning of our democracy. In so doing, I pay tribute to someone who has made such an invaluable contribution to public life. As a former Cabinet Secretary—in fact, the noble Lord was Cabinet Secretary when I was at university and I thank him for his time and generosity towards me in this House—his distinguished career in government lends exceptional authority to our deliberations. It is humbling to follow in his footsteps and the contributions of so many eminent noble Lords in this debate.

Let me affirm at the outset that politicisation of the Civil Service is to be avoided. The principles of impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity enshrined in the Civil Service Code are not abstract ideals. They are the bedrock of a system that has strengthened and sustained our nation for generations. However, political impartiality does not mean—and has never meant—isolation from the political realities of governance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, stressed.

Contrary to some claims, and as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, pointed out, the Civil Service is neither neutral nor independent. Nowhere in statute or case law is it suggested that Civil Servants should, or have a duty to, act independently of government. As Lord Armstrong stated in his 1985 memorandum on the responsibilities of civil servants:

“The Civil Service as such has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the duly elected Government of the day”.


Civil servants are servants of the Crown. Yes, they should be able to advise and challenge robustly, but they work on behalf of the Government to implement their policies and achieve their objectives. Impartiality does not grant civil servants the autonomy to decide which political decisions merit execution and which do not. It is for the electorate, not individual civil servants, to judge the wisdom of those decisions and policies. The Cabinet Secretary wrote in his recent resignation letter that civil servants

“must remain servants of others. We should resist the temptation to become the arbiters of, or participants in, legitimate democratic debate, leaving party politics to politicians”.

That the nation’s most senior civil servant should feel compelled to remind his peers of this foundational principle is striking and underscores the importance of today’s debate.

It is also important to clarify that Ministers have a legitimate role in the appointment of civil servants. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the power of appointment is vested in Ministers, not officials. The Civil Service Commission’s recruitment principles acknowledge that ministerial involvement in the appointment of senior civil servants can enhance the appointment process. My noble friend Lord Maude correctly highlights that it is vital that they should have such influence in his magisterial Review of Governance and Accountability in the Civil Service. When exercised responsibly, this involvement ensures that Ministers, who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, points out, are accountable to Parliament and the electorate, can help shape a Civil Service that can deliver the Government’s mandate effectively and efficiently.

I will touch briefly on the role of special advisers. As a former spad, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in recognising the crucial role of special advisers in connecting politics and civil servants to support Ministers’ priorities. Like my noble friend Lord Godson, whom I congratulate on the excellent reports of Policy Exchange in this space, I welcome Labour’s decision to remove the arbitrary cap on the number of special advisers from the Ministerial Code. Far from undermining Civil Service impartiality, spads shield officials from political pressure, allowing them to maintain their objectivity while enabling Ministers to make informed decisions. They are a vital element of the machinery that preserves the integrity of the Civil Service, but their presence should not lead to a progressive exclusion of officials from controversial or challenging political crises. At best, government is a symbiotic blend of political advisers and permanent officials, as I can attest from my time in Downing Street. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave reinforced this point.

However, we must confront the widely acknowledged challenges facing the Civil Service. While we should celebrate the professionalism and dedication of many civil servants, it is an open secret that the quality of the highest leadership within the service has, in some cases, fallen short of expectations, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, illustrated. This failure was brutally exposed by the Grenfell and infected blood inquiries and stands in stark contrast to previous generations of leaders who exemplified the finest traditions of public service, many of whom have spoken in today’s debate. It also stands in contrast to the achievements of previous generations of Ministers, who have successfully harnessed the Civil Service to deliver political, and sometimes controversial, goals.

The decline in leadership quality cannot be ignored, as it impacts the effectiveness of the Civil Service and, by extension, the Government’s ability to deliver for the public. The leadership has a responsibility to ensure that the Civil Service can continue to serve future Governments and perhaps encourage more of the responsible risk taking advocated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. For this reason, I raise the opacity surrounding the Senior Leadership Committee, a body ostensibly tasked with overseeing appointments at Permanent Secretary and director-general levels and maintaining the capability of the service.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee, in its recent report on appointing and removing Permanent Secretaries, highlighted the troubling lack of transparency in the committee’s operations. We still lack a clear public record of its deliberations, or the business cases presented before it. This lack of accountability erodes trust in the system and raises legitimate questions about the fairness and propriety of senior appointments. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on this matter.

Some of the debate has focused on the politicisation of appointments through exemptions to the Civil Service recruitment principles. This is unsurprising, in light of the controversies surrounding Ian Corfield, Jess Sargeant and Emily Middleton. I emphasise that it is entirely legitimate and often essential for Ministers to bring in external talent to tackle specific challenges. The Vaccine Taskforce, which played such a pivotal role during the Covid-19 pandemic, is a sterling example of the use of exceptional appointments to hire the right people, with the right expertise, to solve critical problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, emphasised the similar need for digital skills in government.

However, such appointments must be accompanied by adequate transparency and honesty. Ministers have a duty to disclose all relevant information about appointees to their Permanent Secretaries, to ensure that the process and integrity of these appointments remain above reproach. Labour Ministers, however, failed to disclose the links of these individuals to significant political donations. It is most troubling that the Chancellor did not inform her Permanent Secretary or the Civil Service Commission that one of her appointees was a personal donor both to her and the Labour Party. These omissions and lack of transparency undermine public confidence and give rise to perceptions of impropriety, even when appointments are made in good faith and involve capable individuals.

Unfortunately, the Civil Service Commission’s recent report on the use of appointment exemptions fell short of providing the clarity and accountability needed. In future, the Civil Service Commission should publish a complete list of all appointments to the senior Civil Service made by exception, not just the most senior posts, along with every exemption to the external by default rule. They should consider including more information on any political activity by those appointed under exception, and doing so in cases below SCS 2, as is the case with special advisers. Will the Minister commit to publishing such a list to improve transparency?

As many noble Lords highlighted, our country has indeed been well served by a permanent Civil Service. We must defend impartiality, demand transparency and ensure leadership worthy of the challenges ahead. Only then can we protect the Civil Service from politicisation and preserve it as the impartial and vital engine of our democracy.