Sir Chris Wormald has been named as the new cabinet secretary and head of the civil service.
The 56-year-old, who will now advise the prime minister on key policy decisions, will replace Simon Case on 16 December after he announced he is stepping down for health reasons.
Sir Chris is currently permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care, advising the health secretary on policy and managing the budget since 2016 – all through the COVID pandemic.
Sir Keir Starmer, who gave final approval for Sir Chris, said he “brings a wealth of experience to this role at a critical moment in the work of change this new government has begun”.
The decision to promote Sir Chris is the biggest of Sir Keir’s premiership so far, with the civil servant having overseen large-scale reforms of several government departments – something that will have appealed to the PM.
The prime minister said his “mission-led” administration will change the way government serves the country, which “will require nothing less than the complete re-wiring of the British state to deliver bold and ambitious long-term reform”.
More from Politics
“Delivering this scale of change will require exceptional civil service leadership,” Sir Keir added.
“There could be no one better placed to drive forward our plan for change than Chris, and I look forward to working with him as we fulfil the mandate of this new government, improving the lives of working people and strengthening our country with a decade of national renewal.”
What does a cabinet secretary do?
They are the most senior civil service adviser to the prime minister and his cabinet.
Their role is to support and advise on the running of cabinet and cabinet committees, helping prepare agendas and supporting the government in reaching a collective agreement on policies.
They are often one of the PM’s senior advisers on how government works, and on major policy decisions.
How the PM and his cabinet secretary work together makes a big difference to the cabinet secretary’s influence.
They are also in charge of ensuring the civil service acts to deliver key manifesto commitments and policies, brokering decisions between ministers and departments and making sure they are followed through.
Not all cabinet secretaries are head of the civil service, but the last few have been.
This involves them managing civil servants, convening meetings of the departmental permanent secretaries, leading reform and improvement of the civil service and representing the civil service in parliament and in the media.
Most cabinet secretaries are appointed by the prime minister of the day, sometimes on the recommendation of the outgoing cabinet secretary.
After Mark Sedwill stood down in 2020 there was a formal competitive process to replace him, however Simon Case reportedly did not apply and was asked to take on the job by Boris Johnson.
Candidates to replace Mr Case were asked for a CV and a cover letter before being interviewed by a panel of former cabinet secretaries, permanent secretaries, head of the Ministry of Defence and the civil service commissioner.
Sir Keir then had the final say to appoint the role, which was advertised with a salary of about £200,000.
Sir Chris said he was “delighted” to be appointed to the “privileged role of leading our talented civil service”.
“The government has set a clear mandate – an ambitious agenda with working people at its heart. That will require each and every one of us to embrace the change agenda in how the British state operates,” he added.
“So I look forward to working with leaders across government, to ensure that the civil service has the skills they need to deliver across the breadth of the country.”
Professor Sir Chris Whitty, chief medical officer, will head up the Department for Health while a new permanent secretary is appointed.
Image: Former Brexit negotiator Sir Olly Robins is understood to have been Sue Gray’s top pick for cabinet secretary. Pic: Reuters
Sir Chris Wormald beat other senior current and former civil servants to the job, advertised with a £200,000 salary.
The other contenders were: Sir Olly Robbins, a former director-general of the civil service who was involved in Brexit talks, Dame Antonia Romeo, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice, and Tamara Finkelstein, permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Some within Whitehall believe Sir Chris was a “safe choice” compared with the other options.
Image: Simon Case said he was stepping down as cabinet secretary after four years due to a neurological condition. Pic: PA
He steps into the shoes of Mr Case, 45, who was appointed in September 2020 and served four different prime ministers.
In an email to the civil service announcing his resignation in September, Mr Case said: “As many of you know, I have been undergoing medical treatment for a neurological condition over the last 18 months and, whilst the spirit remains willing, the body is not.
“It is a shame that I feel I have to spell this out, but my decision is solely to do with my health and nothing to do with anything else.”
Mr Case announced his resignation following a difficult few weeks for Downing Street during which damaging leaks and internal rows took over the narrative, with Sir Keir growing increasingly frustrated.
The top civil servant was said to have had a tense relationship with Sue Gray, Sir Keir’s former chief of staff who stepped down in October following accusations from some Labour figures about the party’s handling of ministers taking freebies.
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.
Over a quarter of Brits said they’d add crypto to their retirement portfolios, while 23% would even withdraw existing pension funds to invest in the space.