Dear Editor,

I AM sure many can remember the Labour government that in 1997 gave an exception to Formula 1 on tobacco advertising following Bernie Eccleston’s £1million donation to the Labour Party, but few would credit sleaze being so quick off the grid in Sir Keir Starmer’s self-declared ‘Government of Service’.

However, an article in Politico published August 14 exposes the sleaze of a banker being given a senior HM Treasury director of investment position without an open selection process, a post usually reserved for career civil servants. The sleaze is further amplified by the failure to disclose to HM Treasury the £20,000 of donations made to Labour’s Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the former banker Ian Corfield who got the job.

Politico’s article quite fairly points out that appointing senior positions without an open selection is not unusual, but requires an exemption by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for recruiting candidates with external skills that cannot be found amongst civil servants, such as staff hired for the Covid 19 Test and Trace scheme.

Politico’s informants reveal: “Corfield’s appointment was given the green light by the commission under these rules, but two individuals familiar with the process, granted anonymity to discuss matters they were not authorized to share publicly, have confirmed to POLITICO that the regulator was not told about his prior donations ahead of its decision.”

Recruitment for such a senior role as director of investment at HM Treasury requires due diligence and as the CSC spokesperson stated “is a matter for the employing department.”

The Treasury refused to confirm whether the donations were declared to James Bowler, the most senior civil servant in the department who is responsible for propriety.

The highly respected think-tank Institute for Government made clear it’s concerns. Jack Worlidge, one of their senior researchers, said the case “exposes clear gaps in the rules.”

Worlidge added: “During the election campaign Labour repeatedly emphasized its credentials around propriety and ethics. It will be interesting to see if the new Ethics and Integrity Commission closes some of these gaps.”

Interestingly, the CSC state in their Recruitment Principles that government departments “will be required to report on their use of Exceptions in the annual compliance statement and their use of Exceptions may be subject to audit.” I’m sure the opposition parties await this compliance statement with glee.