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.
“Japan prizes systemic stability above innovation speed, while the US is signaling a bigger market-opening play,” said Startale Group’s Takashi Tezuka.
Explaining how they plan to tackle what they described as illegal migration, Nigel Farage and his Reform UK colleague Zia Yusuf were happy to disclose some of the finer details – how much money migrants would be offered to leave and what punishments they would receive if they returned.
But the bigger picture was less clear.
How would Reform win a Commons majority, at least another 320 seats, in four years’ time – or sooner if, as Mr Farage implied, Labour was forced to call an early election?
How would his party win an election at all if, as its leader suggested, other parties began to adopt his policies?
Highly detailed legislation would be needed – what Mr Farage calls his Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill.
But Reform would not have a majority in the House of Lords and, given the responsibilities of the upper house to scrutinise legislation in detail, it could take a year or more from the date of an election for his bill to become law.
• The United Nations refugee convention of 1951, extended in 1967, which says people who have a well-founded fear of persecution must not be sent back to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom
• The United Nations convention against torture, whose signatories agree not expel, return or extradite anyone to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe the returned person would be in danger of being tortured
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:31
Farage sets out migration plan
According to the policy document, derogation from these treaties is “justified under the Vienna Convention doctrine of state necessity”.
That’s odd, because there’s no mention of necessity in the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties – and because member states can already “denounce” (leave) the three treaties by giving notice.
It would take up to a year – but so would the legislation. Only six months’ notice would be needed to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, another of Reform’s objectives.
Mr Farage acknowledged that other European states were having to cope with an influx of migrants. Why weren’t those countries trying to give up their international obligations?
His answer was to blame UK judges for applying the law. Once his legislation had been passed, Mr Farage promised, there would be nothing the courts could do to stop people being deported to countries that would take them. His British Bill of Rights would make that clear.
Courts will certainly give effect to the will of parliament as expressed in legislation. But the meaning of that legislation is for the judiciary to decide. Did parliament really intend to send migrants back to countries where they are likely to face torture or death, the judges may be asking themselves in the years to come.
They will answer questions such as that by examining the common law that Mr Farage so much admires – the wisdom expressed in past decisions that have not been superseded by legislation. He cannot be confident that the courts will see the problem in quite the same way that he does.