Lord Hennessy, who called the debate, said that some of the government’s reforms amount to “what some would see as a combined move towards a real, if unacknowledged, politicisation of the senior civil service”, adding that the civil service would pass “through a one-way valve” were it to become politicised.
Hennessy singled out for criticism two reforms championed by Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude: plans to allow secretaries of state to appoint larger, ‘extended ministerial offices’ (EMOs) of political, communications and policy advisers, and his wish to allow secretaries of state to select their permanent secretaries from a provided shortlist. “Is this a creeping politicisation that dare not speak its name? Certainly, it is the coming of the EMO plus the question of ministerial choice that has proved the weather-maker in the wider debate about the coalition’s Civil Service Reform Plan,” Hennessy said.
The peer also backed calls by the Public Administration Select Committee and the Liaison Committee for the establishment of an inquiry into the future of the civil service. “I regret that the coalition does not accept the committee’s assessment that the evidence for a comprehensive strategic review of the nature, role and purpose of the civil service is overwhelming. In my judgement this reply is as misguided as it is disappointing,” he said. “I profoundly hope the prime minister will reconsider. David Cameron has a shining opportunity to stimulate a modern Northcote-Trevelyan-Haldane equivalent… It need not stymie, as some in the Cabinet could argue, the civil service reforms that are on the way."
Several peers said they completely endorsed Lord Hennessy’s arguments, including former cabinet secretary Lord Butler and privy councillor Lord Forsyth. Most speakers were concerned that the introduction of EMOs and increased ministerial say in the selection of permanent secretaries would reduce the independence of the civil service. Hennessy also said that the introduction of special advisors has “in some unfortunate instances injected poison” into the governing process.
Lord Jay, a former senior diplomat, warned that giving ministers greater powers to choose permanent secretaries would give the impression that those appointed were politically partisan: “If a permanent secretary is regarded as the choice of one government or one minister, then he or she will inevitably be regarded with suspicion by the next minister or next government,” he said, adding that this change would “inevitably erode” the principle of civil service impartiality.
Repeating his backing for an inquiry into the civil service, Lord Browne, the government’s lead non-executive director, said a “thorough and independent” review into the civil service is “long overdue”.
“At some point incremental reform will not be enough. I think we need to look fundamentally at how we expect the civil service to behave in the 21st century,” he added.
Lord Butler said there has been a breakdown of trust between ministers and civil servants, which could be addressed by setting up an independent commission. He said the situation has worsened because some ministers have unleashed “an unprecedented spate of recrimination against named civil servants, made worse by the fact that much of it has been through attributable backstairs briefings”.
“The us and them attitude of some ministers endangers the mutual respect and mutual loyalty between politicians and civil servants which has served the country well for a hundred years,” he said.