Sue Gray’s salary as chief of staff attracted controversy for all the wrong reasons: it was too low, not too high. Across government, we should be prepared to pay serious money for serious talent, says Patrick King
Staffing appointments by the new government have led to cries of cronyism, with hand-wringing about civil service politicisation. In fact, the government should go much further.
The UK is an outlier in the support ministers can access. While counterparts in Australia and Canada have the flexibility to build teams around them, UK ministers have to don a hair shirt and operate with one hand tied behind their back. In those other Westminster-style systems, political aides number at least 400, while in the UK last year we had 130.
Political appointments are an essential part of a high-performing government
Far from being a necessary evil, to be limited to the bare minimum, political appointments are an essential part of a high-performing government.
Increasingly, ministers report feeling overloaded by the complexity of their briefs, and unable to drive change through a government machine which is sluggish at best and resistant at worst. While this is partly about the performance of the civil service, local government and the constraints of the public finances, it is also about a woeful lack of political support.
In the department of health, one junior minister is currently responsible for areas including adult social care, primary care, end-of-life care and disabilities. In the department for education, there is a single junior minister for adult education, apprenticeships and the quality of higher education. The minister for border security and asylum has one of the riskiest, most challenging briefs in government. None of them are allowed to appoint a special adviser (spad), which is the preserve of cabinet ministers.
All of these briefs are government priorities, all will involve complex policy decisions, political trade-offs and legislation. Yet we leave the ministers politically unsupported other than the ad hoc input they may get from the secretary of state’s advisers. It should be no that surprise government so often struggles to grip political challenge.
Labour have, thankfully, quietly removed the two spad limit from the Ministerial Code, but a party serious about governing successfully would be bringing in talent and expertise across the board. Can you imagine telling a company CEO they can’t build the team they need to deliver their vision?
Labour have, thankfully, quietly removed the two spad limit from the Ministerial Code, but a party serious about governing successfully would be bringing in talent and expertise across the board
And at the same time, the government need to get serious about pay. Sue Gray’s salary as chief of staff was too low, not too high. Across government we should be prepared to pay serious money for serious talent, and political appointments are no different.
In the past, experienced leaders in business and academia were attracted to these roles. Spads had deep subject matter expertise and provided genuine critical challenge to government.
The top end of the SpAd pay band is now more than a third lower than when Labour was last in power. Had pay kept pace with inflation, the ceiling would today be £214,000; instead it’s less than £145,000.
Interviewees for a new Reform think tank paper on the topic argued this had led to a “surfeit of youth over experience” and a “back door set of mongrels and wasters” who “are not very good; all they are is loyal”. We can keep the pay bill down by employing former party staffers, or we can pay a bit more for deep expertise and serious skills – only one will deliver value for the taxpayer.
Rather than confecting outrage, we should instead be commending Labour for bringing in people with much needed expertise. Better supported ministers can better serve the people. The new Government should press ahead, and ignore the – often highly-paid – naysayers who say otherwise.
Patrick King is senior researcher at Reform