The thorough investigation by the Civil Service Commission into allegations of cronyism in government appointments has concluded, with officials expressing that they are “largely satisfied” with the existing processes. This extensive review was prompted by concerns raised by Conservative members of Parliament, who accused the newly formed Labour government of fostering a culture of nepotism and cronyism following the recent general election in July.
The Commission initiated this inquiry back in August, focusing specifically on “exception” appointments that allow the bypassing of standard civil service recruitment protocols. Surprisingly, the assessment highlighted that the number of such exceptions made in the months following the general election was lower than what might typically be expected during a comparable timeframe. This finding suggested a deliberate approach to appointments, veering away from what critics alleged was an established pattern of favoritism.
However, the report did note some deficiencies within certain government departments, particularly indicating a lack of centralized tracking systems for appointments. It revealed that there were two technical breaches of recruitment principles stemming from issues related to adequate record-keeping. This aspect raised concerns regarding transparency and accountability in the appointment process, even as the overall conclusions leaned toward a favorable view of the mechanisms currently in place.
The review specifically scrutinized unusual appointments made after the Labour government took office, several of which attracted significant media attention. For instance, Ian Corfield, a former banker who had previously donated £20,000 to Labour, was given a temporary position in the Treasury to assist in organizing an investment summit in October. Similarly, Jess Sargeant, who had ties with the think tank Labour Together, was appointed as the deputy director in the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Constitution Group. Emily Middleton, who held a substantial role in the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology, had also been associated with donations that supported her prior work with Labour.
As awareness of these appointments grew, Conservative shadow minister John Glen vocally called for complete transparency around them, arguing that Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, could no longer disregard the implications of such connections. The scrutiny intensified as the Civil Service Commission signaled the commencement of a review, driven by the public’s interest and concern over these new civil service appointments made through exceptions.
The Commission, led by Gisela Stuart, a former Labour MP turned independent peer in the House of Lords, reported that exception appointments are permissible under specific circumstances, such as temporary roles, positions requiring highly specialized skills, or during urgent short-term needs. Only the most senior exception appointments require the Commission’s approval, whereas lower-level appointments provide departments with more latitude.
After examining the data, the report indicated that in 2023/24, a total of 6,977 exception appointments were made from an overall 98,328 appointments, marking a 25% reduction from the prior year. The overall trend showed a lower number of exceptions granted compared to previous years, suggesting strengthened protocols within administrative departments. Nonetheless, some critics, including Henry Newman, who previously advised Conservative ministers, criticized the review, asserting it was a superficial examination designed to absolve the government of wrongdoing.
In its conclusions, the Civil Service Commission stated they were generally satisfied with departmental processes for handling exceptions, but they highlighted the necessity for better justifications relating to appointment durations and stronger central tracking systems. Furthermore, they recommended enhanced oversight procedures, emphasizing the need for departments to prepare detailed exception approval forms to substantiate the necessity for sidestepping the open recruitment process. The recommendation emphasized the establishment of robust challenge frameworks to ensure that exception appointments were rigorously justified and judiciously applied.
While the findings point to improvements in recruitment practices within the civil service, the revelations surrounding the recent appointments raise ongoing questions about the integrity and transparency of government hiring processes, underscoring the importance of continuous scrutiny and advocacy for accountability in public service.
