Keir Starmer recently announced Sir Chris Wormald as the  new Cabinet Secretary, the head of the Civil Service. Already a challenging job, combining acting as the principal official adviser to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, while also being leader of the Civil Service, given the Government’s desire to reform Whitehall, this will prove an even greater challenge, argues Richard Mottram.

Enjoying this post? Then sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles.

On December 2 it was announced that Sir Chris Wormald is to be the new Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, following an open competition for the post. On December 5, Sir Keir Starmer launched the government’s Plan for Change, setting out milestones to track progress in delivering the national missions it has prioritised.

The document’s Foreword explained that its delivery “will demand from Whitehall and Westminster a profound cultural shift away from a declinist mentality.” In explaining the challenge in achieving change, the Foreword suggested that previous politicians “have narrowed their ambitions, terrified of the reaction if they fail to deliver” and that “such timidity has been internalised by Whitehall as a reluctance to take any risks whatsoever.”

So we might conclude there is a dual Westminster/Whitehall problem (expressed in hyperbolical language). But briefing of the media prior to the launch and Keir Starmer’s own sound-bite on the day pointed in one direction only:

“I don’t think there’s a swamp to be drained here. But I do think that too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline. ”

How the Prime Minister knows the level of comfort of too many across Whitehall is unclear. And quite why such a remark might be thought to motivate those accused of being in the “tepid bath” is perhaps a mystery?

There is an unresolved mismatch between the quasi-presidential ambitions or at least heavily top-down approach of Prime Ministers and their political advisers and the top of the civil service clinging to a vision of collective government.

Refashioning the Centre and the Civil Service

That said, there are real challenges in delivering successful change involving both the structures and processes of government, on which Ministers should expect to be effectively advised and supported by the civil service, and the quality and expertise of civil servants in policy and delivery roles. These include the structure at the centre, where the No 10 machine now has large numbers of special advisers in increasingly senior roles and a limited number of civil servants, and how No 10 is effectively linked to those staff in the Cabinet Office who effectively work for the Prime Minister as well as sustaining collective government. There is an unresolved mismatch between the quasi-presidential ambitions or at least heavily top-down approach of Prime Ministers and their political advisers and the top of the civil service clinging to a vision of collective government and the effective engagement of departmental ministers in decision making.

In terms of people there are questions to be asked about the growth in civil service numbers, the increasing proportion of more senior posts(and likely “grade drift”), and whether recruitment and promotion systems support the levels of expertise in particular policy areas and the development of leadership and management skills needed to modernise central government.

The Appointment Process

The top of the civil service needs then both to help hone and deliver the Government’s missions (and a host of other responsibilities outside this framework) and to develop the capability of the civil service. The very top comes together in the post to which Chris Wormald has been appointed. The appointment process reflected the policy that senior civil service jobs should generally be advertised externally, and there was therefore a published job description and Candidate Brief (now deleted from the Cabinet Office website after applications closed) that illuminated some questions about the job and the criteria specified for filling it.

In reality the two roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service are very different in character and the first role tends to eclipse the second.

Two jobs in one?

The job combines acting as the principal official adviser to the Prime Minister and Cabinet with being leader of the civil service and a large and complex organisation with around 500,000 staff. The Candidate Brief looked amongst other things to the post holder to lead reform and improvement in the civil service in support of the government’s mission-led approach. There is no mention of leading or managing the Cabinet Office itself, or addressing the structure at the centre of government.

In reality the two roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service are very different in character and the first role tends to eclipse the second. It is perhaps a telling example that the outgoing incumbent, Simon Case, attends but does not chair either the Civil Service Board, responsible for the strategic leadership of the civil service, nor the Senior Leadership Committee, responsible for talent management of senior leaders in the Service.

No particular experience required

The essential criteria for the job (headed in the Candidate Brief as “Experience Required”) listed a set of qualities or skills: for example beginning with “the ability to secure the confidence of the Prime Minister and Cabinet” and going on to recognise the importance of leading through and commanding the “confidence and respect” of Permanent Secretaries. So what of the “Experience Required”? Presumably to open up the field to the widest possible range of candidates, the Candidate Brief specified no essential or desirable experience. In any other part of the public or private sectors, this might seem supremely odd. Could the successful candidate inspire confidence and respect with no prior civil service experience; and can one imagine a Candidate Brief to head any other organisation with 500,000 employees that did not to stress –at least as desirable- having led and managed a large and complex organisation and delivered successful change at scale?

Massively Underpaid?

If the process was designed to open up applications from the external market as well as internal candidates, some link might be expected between the remuneration offered and that for roles with a similar scale of responsibilities elsewhere? The salary on offer- circa £200,000- is the one aspect of the competition that led to media attention, picking up the former Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell’s comment that: “It’s massively underpaid in my view – given I’ve been paid a lot more since, to do a lot less.” An even more telling point might be that, after his appointment to the top job, Gus O’Donnell’s published base salary on January 1 2006 was in the band £215,000 to 219,999. So the pay offer for this top post is lower than that being paid 18 years ago!

Back then, the salaries of the Cabinet Secretary/ Head of the Civil Service, and the posts at the top of the Armed Forces and the Judiciary were broadly linked. The other two top salaries have remained broadly linked. Their salaries too have been squeezed in real terms but both posts have salaries currently of over £300,000, or a roughly 50 per cent premium over that now on offer for the top civil servant.

It seems implausible that anyone without prior significant civil service experience would have been credible in the role and unlikely in any case that anyone with top level experience elsewhere would have been attracted by the risk and reward structure on offer.

The winning candidate

Chris Wormald was chosen by the Prime Minister from a list of candidates considered capable of doing the job well identified by a panel chaired by the First Civil Service Commissioner. I have no knowledge of who was on that short list. But it seems implausible that anyone without prior significant civil service experience would have been credible in the role and unlikely in any case that anyone with top level experience elsewhere would have been attracted by the risk and reward structure on offer, including given the fate of recent incumbents of the post.

Amongst candidates with civil service experience, Chris Wormald has relevant policy experience, has headed two major departments, and has the credibility to lead the Permanent Secretary tribe. He might also be thought to be the safe choice, when the Prime Minister has signalled the need for a substantial change in direction. Whether, working with the Prime Minister, he can meld the centre of government to be an effective organisation, can successfully modernise the civil service, and can help drive wider public service reform remains, of course, to be seen. He knows where the blame is likely to be laid for any collective failure.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image credit: pxl.store in Shutterstock

Enjoyed this post? Then sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles.