Shortly after Liz Truss was appointed prime minister, and Kwasi Kwarteng chancellor, on 6th September 2022, Treasury permanent secretary Tom Scholar left his post, a controversial departure widely reported as a sacking. This event followed a series of high-profile departures of very senior civil servants over the preceding years—in 2020 alone, 12 officials of permanent secretary rank left their posts—amid reports of a deteriorating relationship between ministers and civil servants.
One of the civil service’s four core values is impartiality. Civil servants are expected to serve the government of the day regardless of their own political views. Crucially, they should serve governments of different political persuasions equally well, and they must do so in line with the civil service’s other core values: integrity, honesty and objectivity. Any increase in ministerial involvement in appointments or removals risks undermining these values, in favour of appointment based on patronage or political congruence. Nonetheless, ministers are accountable to parliament for their departments’ performance and have a legitimate interest in ensuring the right people are appointed and that they perform well.
We found that the current formal level of ministerial involvement in appointments was appropriate. Ministers already have considerable influence over the shape of the competition for a given role, though some may not be aware of the extent of their powers. Alongside this, the Civil Service Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the competition is fair and open and that candidates are appointed on merit.
On departures, we believe that it may, very rarely, be necessary to remove a permanent secretary due to a poor working relationship with a particular secretary of state. But such a decision should not be arbitrary—incoming ministers should allow the permanent secretary time to establish a productive relationship and the head of the civil service should ensure that individuals are not removed without due process or consideration of whether they might be transferred to another role.
It is a vital principle that civil servants should never be dismissed on purely political or ideological grounds. While this might be rare, recent examples might point to there being insufficient safeguards around departure. The process should be formalised, requiring the prime minister to explain any decision to remove a senior civil servant in writing to the Civil Service Commission.
The balance civil servants must strike between impartiality and serving the government of the day presents unique challenges for those supporting the Scottish and Welsh governments. Civil servants of those governments—but not of the Northern Ireland Executive—are part of the UK civil service, despite the devolution of political power. Those officials are politically accountable to their respective governments but organisationally accountable to Whitehall. This can present particular issues when, as currently, the governments in Scotland, Wales and the UK are formed by different political parties, and especially when a devolved government wishes to test the boundary of its powers.
The Scottish government’s recent appointment of a minister for independence has raised questions over the propriety of civil servants supporting that policy area. The permanent secretary of the Scottish government will need to manage that tension with the assistance of the cabinet secretary.
Permanent secretaries are accountable for the regularity of public spending, including that proposed actions are within a department’s legal powers. Ultimately, if the permanent secretary in Scotland or Wales feels that civil servants are potentially being asked to work on matters outside the devolved administration’s powers, and the issue cannot be resolved through the involvement of the cabinet secretary, they should formally request a direction to undertake that work from the relevant minister, in order to protect the impartiality of the civil service.
