Did the Civil Service Commission know about Emily Middleton’s “political activity” when they approved her role?
Peter Kyle received a donation worth over £65,000 to cover Emily Middleton’s work for him in Opposition, before she was appointed as a Director General in his department.
Three weeks ago, Politico’s Vincent Manancourt revealed that Emily Middleton had been appointed as a Director General for “Digital Centre Design” in the Department for Science, Technology and Innovation.
Emily had previously worked for the politically-aligned Labour Together think tank for ten months in the immediate run up to the General Election. And she had been seconded into the office of the Shadow Minister and now Secretary of State for Science, Peter Kyle.
As I wrote previously, this appointment fails the sniff test.
21 days later there is still no transparency around her appointment and her role is still not listed on the department’s webpage. Yet Emily Middleton has added her departmental position to her LinkedIn.
It’s simply not good enough for the department to fail to include up to date information on its senior positions, when the individual involved is publicising it herself. The new ministers were listed within hours. Why this delay?
News of Emily Middleton’s position was followed by a further Politico scoop – that Labour donor Ian Corfield had been appointed to a director position in the Treasury. Earlier this week, the Civil Service Commission made clear that they had no knowledge of Mr Corfield’s donation to Rachel Reeves when they approved his appointment as an official in the department she runs. This is extraordinary and begs the question – would the Commission have approved the appointment if they had known?
Yet Emily Middleton was appointed to an even more senior role than Ian Corfield. As I explained previously, Directors General run large parts of departments or entire agencies – eg one Director General is in charge of the whole of the prison and probation service. These are major roles.
But Emily Middleton is also linked to a donation to the Labour Party and Peter Kyle specifically. We know from her LinkedIn that from January 2024 to July 2024 she was a partner at Public Digital “on secondment to the Labour Party advising on digital public services reform”. Peter Kyle’s register of interests lists two donations from Public Digital (ie the company of which she is a partner) £33,280 for a “secondee to work on policy relating to my Shadow Science, Innovation and Technology brief”. So he received a donation worth over £65,000 before his department appointed her as a Civil Servant through an exceptional process.
Given the revelation that the Civil Service Commission was unaware about Ian Corfield’s donation when they approved his appointment as an official, it seems possible that the Commission may have also been unaware of Emily Middleton’s work at Labour Together or for the Secretary of State. Did they know her company had ‘donated’ to Peter Kyle to cover her salary? This needs urgent clarification.
And, just as in the case of Rachel Reeves, it is possible that Peter Kyle breached the ministerial code by failing to address the potential for a conflict of interest relating to his donation and the subsequent employment of Emily Middleton by his department. Was he recused from the decision to appoint her?
It is also still unclear whether the Senior Leadership Committee of officials ‘signed off’ the appointment of Emily Middleton and/or the creation of the new Director General post and, if they did, whether they did so in the knowledge that she had worked for Labour Together and had been seconded into the office of the MP who is now the Secretary of State for her department.
Both appointments are causing waves inside Whitehall and beyond. I have spoken to several officials who are very uncomfortable that these individuals were appointed through the exceptional process, given their recent political activity.
HM Treasury and the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation must now come clean about exactly what has gone on with both appointments.
However, it is the Cabinet Secretary - as Head of the Home Civil Service – who is ultimately responsible for maintaining the political impartiality of the Civil Service. And so, it is the Cabinet Office who should set out precisely what else has gone on. There is nothing inherently wrong with appointing either individual. But it should have been done with transparency and through clear processes. How many other such appointments are there? And what steps will now be put in place to ensure appropriate transparency and probity around all Civil Service appointments?