Janice R. Andrews
In order to be open and keep the public’s trust, the Civil Service Commission is looking into recent transfers to the civil service after claims of favoritism involving the Labour Party. The investigation will look at decisions made from July 1 to August 31, which includes the time that Labour won the election on July 5.
A number of high-profile decisions were made without following normal hiring procedures, which led to worries about possible political favoritism and led to the investigation. The First Civil Service Commissioner, Baroness Gisela Stuart, stressed how important it is for there to be fair and open competition for jobs in the civil service. In her letter to the heads of government departments, she said again that appointments should be based on ability and that there should be no party bias in the process.
The investigation is only looking into appointments made through the “Exception” process, which lets offices hire people directly instead of posting the job openings. This method can be used for jobs with pay below £97,000 without the Commission’s prior approval. However, the watchdog must approve any appointment above this amount. The Commission has asked for thorough reports on all of these kinds of decisions made during the time period given.
The temporary head of the Civil Service Commission, Kate Owen, said that the review would check to see if offices followed the Recruitment Principles. “This review will examine whether departments have made appointments in line with the expectations set out in the Recruitment Principles,” Owen said.
It was recently revealed that Ian Corfield, a former banker who gave £20,000 to the Labour Party, was given a top job in the Treasury. This led to the probe. It turned out that the Commission didn’t know about his donation when it accepted his position. Corfield quit his job as Treasury chief because of the reaction. He will now work as an unpaid assistant to Chancellor Rachel Reeves instead.
Emily Middleton, a businesswoman whose company gave £67,000 to Labour, was named director general of the Department for Science and Technology soon after the gift became public. This was another controversial choice. Because of these cases, Labour has been accused of possibly going around established processes to favor donors, which has led to calls for a full probe.
Laura Trott, a spokesperson for Shadow Treasury, said that Corfield’s new job was bad because it “only seeks to underline how serious this scandal is.” In the same way, John Glen, who is the shadow paymaster general, has been calling for a probe because he thinks that ministers may be trying to “circumvent” the rules to put party members in key roles.
Glen said in response to the investigation, “I welcome that the Commission has backed our calls for a review into Labour’s crony appointments… Keir Starmer can no longer try to brush this under the carpet.” This investigation puts Labour’s actions under even more scrutiny, calling into question leader Keir Starmer’s promise to “clean up” politics at a time when gifts and hires are still being questioned.
The Civil Service Commission’s results will be very important in figuring out if the recent appointments were fair and upheld the integrity of the civil service as the probe goes on. The result will also have a big effect on the public’s trust in government choices and the Labour Party’s promise to make its work more open and fair.
