Rachel Reeves faces questions on Labour donor’s Treasury role

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is facing questions about the appointment of a Labour Party donor to a senior Treasury role.

The BBC has been told that former banker Ian Corfield was brought in to to help deliver an international investment summit in October.

He is understood to be on a fixed term contract for what a source described as a “very limited” period of time. His social media profile suggests it began in July. It is not clear when the contract ends.

Conservative shadow Treasury chief secretary Laura Trott has described the appointment as “hypocrisy off the scale” from Labour and has demanded to know whether the chancellor was involved in it.

Over the past decade Mr Corfield has donated a total of £20,000 to three Labour MPs, including £5,000 to Rachel Reeves in July 2023.

His previous donations were to Labour’s former deputy leader Tom Watson in 2015 and 2017, and to former shadow Treasury minister Rebecca Long-Bailey in 2016.

In a letter to the Treasury’s top civil servant, James Bowler, Ms Trott asked whether the Civil Service Commission, which regulates appointments, was aware of Mr Corfield’s donation to Ms Reeves – and whether the chancellor was recused from the process surrounding the appointment.

The Politico website has reported that the Treasury did not inform the commission of Mr Corfield’s donation history.

Ms Trott also asked whether advice had been sought about any potential conflict of interest between Mr Corfield’s donations and the civil service’s political impartiality.

Both Mr Corfield and Ms Reeves’ team have been approached for comment.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Mr Corfield previously provided business advice to the Labour Party for seven months, and before that held senior roles in financial services. Until recently, he was also a director of Labour-supporting news website LabourList.

He was appointed to his Treasury position without going through the usual application process. This is allowed when the commission is satisfied a fair and open competition is not feasible, for example because of an urgent need to recruit or a role’s short duration.

So-called “exceptions” to the normal rules have been granted more than 100 times in the past 12 months.

A commission spokesperson said: “This temporary appointment was approved by the Commission, recognising the need for the Civil Service to quickly bring in relevant skills for a fixed term.

“All appointments by exception are reminded of their responsibilities under the Civil Service Code to act with impartiality, objectivity, integrity and honesty.”

There are no rules automatically preventing someone being appointed to a civil service role because of a political donation.

The recruitment principles say the selection panel must be satisfied that the candidate “understands the requirement to operate objectively and impartially… and must record how this has been done”.

A government spokesperson said: “As you would expect, we do not comment on individual staffing appointments. Any appointments are made in line with the civil service rules on recruitment.”

The Cabinet Office is responsible for codes of conduct for civil servants, ministers and special advisers.

Its Code of Governance says it should be “publicly disclosed” if a successful candidate, has, in the last five years, been employed by a political party or made “significant donations” to one.

According to the code, the sums of money donated by Mr Corfield would count as “significant”.

The Ministerial Code says ministers “must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise”.

“It is the personal responsibility of each Minister to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict, taking account of advice received from their Permanent Secretary and the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ interests.”

The Treasury and the Cabinet Office have also been approached for comment.

Ms Trott said: “I just think this is hypocrisy from the Labour Party… They’ve put a Labour donor into the Treasury, into a civil service position, which is meant to be impartial.”

Henry Newman, a former adviser to Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, said: “If Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak had made this sort of appointment, I can imagine the howls of outrage that would have followed.”

Jack Worlidge, from the Institute for Government think tank, told the BBC the case “exposes the gaps” in the rules surrounding civil service appointments.

He added: “Labour have separately committed to an ethics and integrity commission, which could be a possible route to addressing some of the gaps.”

The Labour Party declined to comment.