What honeymoon? Since the election three months ago, the new government’s faced endless Sue Gray stories, losing a conference vote about the winter fuel payment cut, the small matter of riots across the UK… And now, Taylor Swift. Specifically, rumbling criticism of the PM and other Labour Cabinet ministers for nabbing free tickets to the Eras tour. After a landslide win, it’s proven to be a cruel summer.
But before all that bad blood, there was one intriguing Whitehall story you might’ve missed. It involved the firing of some non-executive directors (NEDs). These are individuals appointed to departmental boards in Whitehall to support, challenge and scrutinise their work. In particular, they focus on the operational side of departments, i.e. they’re not there to advise on policy matters but on improving how things are delivered. As a recent Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report stated, they generally have three-year terms (which can be renewed) and are paid £15,000 per year, though this varies somewhat department-by-department.
Upon taking office, a few new secretaries of state took dramatic action around NEDs. In some departments, like the Cabinet Office, almost all NEDs were culled in one hit. But what actually is a non-executive director? Who are they? And what do they do?
Getting the NEDs on board
The development of NEDs can – according to a significant 2018 report from UCL’s Constitution Unit – be divided into three phases.
The first saw no standard approach across different Whitehall departments. In fact, after NEDs were introduced in the 1990s, some departments decided not to appoint any at all. Those that were brought in were appointed by the permanent secretary (rather than politicians) and their influence varied extensively (much like with Chief Scientific Advisers today).
By 2005, the report continues, every Whitehall department – save for the Department of Health – had managed to appoint a NED. A Code of Good Practice, introduced in the same year, recommended that departments should each have at least two NEDs on their board. But for now, at least, ministers’ involvement in their selection remained limited.
By far the most consequential phase in the development of NEDs came during Lord Francis Maude’s tenure in the Cabinet Office. In 2010, he updated the Ministerial Code. In its revised form, it stated: “Secretaries of State should chair their departmental board” which would have a remit of “performance and delivery, and… strategic leadership of the department.” Crucially, NEDs would be used to help Whitehall draw on business nous, with the Code explaining that NEDs themselves should be “largely drawn from the commercial private sector.”
Lord Maude also introduced a new Government Lead NED position, first held by Lord Browne. The Government Lead was tasked with helping to attract top private talent to boards across Whitehall. And under Maude’s reforms, it was ministers, not permanent secretaries, who would have the final say over who their NEDs would be.
Since then, changes to the NED role have been far more limited. Of these, the most substantial came in 2023 where the Government committed to a more regulated process for appointing NEDs, which now gives ministers less discretion over their choice of appointee.
Today, while the role is much better understood within Whitehall, their influence varies. This often reflects how far a secretary of state uses their board to help drive change and to what extent they want a NED poking around the department.
Who are the NEDs?
In that 2018 paper, the Constitution Unit looked at the demographics of the 147 NEDs appointed since 2010. It found that just 38% had been female (though by August 2017, 44% of those currently in-post were women). The average age was 58. 54% were privately educated and 42% had completed an undergraduate degree at Oxford or Cambridge. And, in line with Lord Maude’s wishes, 82% had a business, commercial or financial services background.
Looking at the NEDs currently installed today, it’s striking to see the level of talent departments can draw on. There’s private sector expertise, like Ian King, ex-CEO of BAE Systems (lead NED at the Department for Transport), Jen Tippin, COO of the NatWest Group (NED at HMRC), and Mike Ashley, ex-Head of Quality and Risk Management at KPMG Europe (NED at the Cabinet Office.) There’s public sector expertise too, including operational experts like Patricia Gallan QPM, ex-Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (NED at HMRC) or Michael Fuller QPM – the only ethnic minority chief constable ever appointed in England and Wales – who was a Home Office NED from 2020 – 2023.
However, there’ve also been a much smaller number of more overtly political NEDs. In 2020, Liz Truss appointed ex-UKIP MP and Vote Leave founder Douglas Carswell as a NED in the Department for International Trade. Health Secretary Matt Hancock brought a former friend and supporter Gina Coladangelo into his department – though the less said there the better. Some NEDs – like Gerry Grimstone and Theodore Agnew – even became Tory ministers after serving on departmental boards.
The rise of the super-spads
These more political appointments, while few in number, caused great controversy. Some feel they undermine the fundamental purpose of the NED role. For NEDs to properly challenge and scrutinise the department, surely independence from the minister is crucial? Especially in those cases where ministers are at loggerheads with their civil servants over some aspect of delivery, there’s obvious value to an expert outside eye to give a second opinion. And, of course, a board with a healthy level of independence will be just as likely to give constructive challenge to politicians as to civil servants.
Some argue instead that NEDs who are close to ministers can offer much to actually improve things. If a NED has a positive working relationship with the secretary of state, with mutual respect and a shared understanding of priorities on both sides, they can play that critical friend role much more effectively. Maybe the politicisation risk is overblown and NEDs should ideally work more closely with politicians to make things happen.
It’s here that the ‘Gove model’ is worth considering. He famously – and again controversially – used NEDs in a much more active way. As the Institute for Government points out, “at both the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Gove cleared out boards with a view to installing NEDs who worked for three or four days a week on the detail of policy and delivery.”
They weren’t just there to sit in on board meetings, they really were part of the team. But these NEDs were often political allies. For example, in 2020, Gove selected Henry de Zoete (his former SpAd), Baroness Simone Finn (Tory peer and ex-SpAd), and Baroness Gisela Stuart (former Chair of Vote Leave) as NEDs in the Cabinet Office.
At the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Miranda Curtis, a former lead NED in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, offered up the following interpretation of this trend. As she put it (though without referring to any specific case): “We have all experienced appointments being made in departments of political allies of Ministers or Secretaries of State, who come in as super SpAds. That is clearly a different role from the role of an independent non-exec…”
Gove 2.0?
But what does all this tell us about Labour’s dismissal of the NEDs? Well, remember that the story wasn’t just about a NED or two being removed from a departmental board. It was about Gove-style overhauls, especially in the Cabinet Office.
In 2015, Mr Gove removed all existing Non Executive Directors in the MoJ on his appointment as Secretary of State – to some criticism. This year, new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden MP removed eight of the nine Cabinet Office NEDs – leaving behind only Mike Ashley (who chairs its Audit and Risk Committee). In the Department of Business and Trade (DBT), Jonathan Reynolds MP removed 5 NEDs – with apparent plans to recruit 6 replacements.
So, what is the idea behind this? It seems unlikely to be a public-oriented political strategy. After all, who outside of Whitehall could name a NED? Even if they could, it’s unlikely to be a vote-swinger.
And it’s not simply about clearing out the exiting overtly political NEDs either. Two DBT NEDs were ex-Tory ministers (Syed Kamall and Sir Stephen O’Brien), but the others weren’t obviously affiliated. Similarly, in the Cabinet Office, Henry de Zoete’s removal might make sense (given the Gove connection) and, at a push, Lord Hogan-Howe’s might too (as a reportedly close ally of ex-PM Boris Johnson). But the other six NEDs there aren’t meaningfully different from those found in plenty of other departments.
So, here’s two theories to mull over… The first (and less exciting) is that ministers see refreshing the NEDs as a way to reset and assert some control. A Cummings-style purge of top officials isn’t something Labour has an appetite for – it’s distinctly not Starmer-y. And trying to shift around top talent in Whitehall is famously extremely difficult. So, if ministers have decided those battles aren’t worth the fight, then perhaps the hope is that some new NEDs can offer fresh energy.
The second – more intriguing and more controversial – is that this is Gove 2.0. Selecting Labour-friendly NEDs will be called out by some who fear politicisation. It will be labelled as cronyism by the Opposition and various newspapers. And it’s also true that the 2023 reforms reduce the control ministers have over new NEDs anyway.
But with tight budgets and public services struggling, much of Labour’s mindset is relentlessly technocratic. NEDs can help to push for operational improvement, especially where officials know that they’ve got the ear of the secretary of state.
So, a highly influential set of NEDs – even a few super-spads – might not be the Avengers, but they might do something to help improve delivery. Is refreshing the NEDs a neat, technocratic way to try and drive change, while avoiding any substantial early fight with the civil service?
Well, here’s the problem. We don’t have the answer yet and we won’t get it, at least until the new NEDs come. For new DBT NED applications, the closing date was the 10th September. The Cabinet Office hasn’t even advertised for replacements yet. So, will the super-spads save the day? Watch this space…
James Sweetland.
James Sweetland is a freelance researcher, writer and consultant who works on government reform, policing and tech policy.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.