Emily Middleton and Ian Corfield have both recently been appointed to very senior civil service jobs. Both are also connected to the Labour Party – Middleton worked for the aligned group Labour Together, and Corfield made donations both to the party and to chancellor Rachel Reeves. This has led to questions about how they were hired, and whether appointing recently politically active individuals risks politicising the civil service, particularly given the rank and importance of their new jobs.
An impartial civil service is necessary but can lead to tensions
An impartial civil service is one of the country’s key assets. The evidence shows that permanent and impartial government administrations are more effective and less corrupt. Maintaining an impartial civil service is the best way to support ministers and the decisions that they take.
However, the existence of a permanent bureaucracy can cause frustration. Some ministers ask why they should not have the power to hire and fire officials, when they are the ones who are held accountable to parliament and the public for running the government.
Recognising that ministers have a legitimate interest in the recruitment of very senior officials, a system has evolved where civil service appointments should be made through fair and open competition (under the oversight of the independent regulator, the Civil Service Commission), but for some roles ministers are allowed to shape and influence the appointment process. The theory is that this system should still ensure that appointments are made on merit, while also that, for roles where “the relevant minister has an interest”, a candidate with the skills the minister wants, and with whom they will work well, is hired.
Shortcutting the process for appointees with political backgrounds is a mistake
All recruitment processes take time, and while the civil service must do more to speed things up by improving HR processes and being ready for quick appointments following changes of government, the best candidates cannot be conjured up immediately. With the Middleton and Corfield appointments, it appears that ministers wanted to bring in people they knew and rated to start work straight away.
The civil service does need external hires to offer fresh perspectives and bring in new skills. Sometimes those people will need to come in urgently. Indeed, in 2022 we at the Institute for Government argued that there should be more use of the "exception" process where people can be brought in without an open competition – allowing the civil service to appoint exceptional candidates in the same way as the private sector, if that is what it takes to hire them.
"By definition, exceptions are for exceptional cases. For these appointments, it would have been better to have run a rapid recruitment process"
But, by definition, exceptions are for exceptional cases. For these appointments, it would have been better to have run a rapid recruitment process. That may have resulted in the favoured person being appointed, but if the process highlighted someone better, then all to the good. As well as supporting the impartiality of the civil service, this would have given the successful candidates more chance of success. Starting with resentful colleagues or with questions about the merit of the appointment makes these tough jobs even harder.
The Civil Service Commission should consider the background of candidates before granting ‘exceptions’
That there is no reference to the political background of appointees in the commission’s rules also looks like an oversight. The commission focuses on its recruitment principles but leaves ethical questions about political background to the Cabinet Office propriety team. The commission should be more engaged in this aspect of civil service impartiality.
People who have recently been politically aligned, including making donations to parties and candidates, should be able to become civil servants. But the commission should be particularly cautious about granting recruitment exemptions for such applicants. And if someone is going to work with a candidate to whom they have made a personal donation there need to be particularly rigorous safeguards.
More transparency is a simple way to maintain confidence in impartiality
But there will be times when an exception is justified and needed, including when ministers have a view on the best person for a job. So the government should be more transparent about the information it provides to the Civil Service Commission, and the assessment that the Commission makes, on each successful exemption request (there would be no need to publicise exceptions that were not granted, as these people would not be taking up a job). We would see the government’s justification for the exemptions, the reasons why these candidates were exceptionally suited to their jobs, and the rationale the commission applied in granting an exemption.
Recruiting the best people into the right jobs is not easy, and perfection is impossible. We have previously criticised the civil service for processes which disempower managers from making professional assessments about the quality of candidates for jobs. But confidence in the impartiality of the civil service requires transparency about how and why people have been recruited, especially when they have a history of political or personal connections with senior ministers or officials.
A modest move towards more transparency is needed and would go a long way to maintaining confidence in impartiality inside and outside the civil service.
Alex Thomas is a programme director at the Institute for Government, leading the think tank's work on the civil service. This blog first appeared on the IfG website