A reformist UK government would hope to sack the top officials in every government department and replace them with people seen as more likely to implement the party’s priorities, The Guardian has learned.
Senior Reform officials have concluded that the current generation of permanent secretaries, the principal civil servant in each department, does not reach the necessary level. Some would be replaced by outsiders and others by existing officials deemed more suitable.
The plan has raised warnings that a shift toward a less stable and more politicized public administration could result in the loss of significant experience and institutional memory, and would make the government less effective.
Nigel Farage’s party has promised to implement a radical programme. One ranking member said this would follow the model of the second Trump administration, with a focus on making changes through executive orders rather than legislation, when possible.
Reform has already said it would consider appointing outside experts to become ministers. It is understood that, as well as making some peers, so they can sit in the House of Lords, others considered for ministerial posts would be lined up to gain seats in the House of Commons.
While the party has received a number of large donations in recent months, including £12 million from crypto investor Christopher Harborne, donors are expected to be ruled out for ministerial positions.
The influx of money has allowed Reform to expand its teams working on new policy and preparation for the government. This process has so far had limited input from Farage, with insiders saying the party leader is focusing on the May elections in England, Scotland and Wales.
Several other countries have senior officials who are politicized and change with governments, particularly the United States. In the UK, existing rules allow ministers to fast-track people from outside the civil service as “exceptional appointments” for two-year periods.
But unions and experts said the reform plans risked hampering ministers’ work rather than improving it.
“An ideological purge does not contribute to good government,” said Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, the union for senior civil servants. “Experience and institutional memory would be lost, but a message would also be sent to the rest of the public administration that they are not trusted.
“Every civil servant knows that he has to serve the government of the day. It is absolutely clear: you serve or you leave. There is no real evidence that the civil service stands in the way.
“How do you expect to attract the best and brightest if you then throw them under a bus? This would attract believers, but not necessarily the best people. And it shouldn’t be about what people believe. It’s about what they can do.
“Another problem is that as soon as there are political elections, when you change ministers, they will also want to make their own choice. Over the last 10 years we have had entire teams of football secretaries of state. If you changed the permanent secretary every time, it would be a massive turnover and very disruptive.”
Alex Thomas, of the Institute for Government think tank, said there was an obvious argument for public officials to be given clear direction.
He continued: “The question is what is effective. A blanket dismissal of all senior civil servants would remove a huge amount of experience, knowledge and insight into how to make government do its job.
“If the intent is to shock and awe, I would be surprised if it worked. The history of government reform shows that the people who succeed are those who push forward, find allies, and work with the system, rather than going to war against it.”
Reform UK has been contacted for comment.
