My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of all previous speakers about the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I particularly associate myself, as a former member of the fourth estate, with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. Having spent many hours interviewing the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for my biography of the late Lord Trimble, I too owe him much for his matchless wisdom.

I wish that the Civil Service was the same organisation in ethos, values and capability as it was when the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was Cabinet Secretary. I am not always confident this is the case nowadays. As a result, I believe it is Ministers who need more support. I therefore wish, perhaps surprisingly to the Minister and Members opposite, to commend the new Government on their decision to remove the arbitrary cap on special adviser numbers.

Far from politicising the Civil Service, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and others have pointed out, special advisers can perform a critical function in preserving its impartiality by offering Ministers the political counsel that civil servants rightly cannot provide. I very much hope that the Conservative Party will not now make the errors it made the last time it was in Opposition, during the 2005 to 2010 Parliament, in calling for an artificial cap on numbers, thus leaving Conservative Ministers sometimes under-resourced to deliver their priorities when they eventually got into government.

This brings me to my other point. The risk of politicisation in the Civil Service is real, as noble Lords pointed out, but it is too often narrowly defined as meaning party politicisation emanating from Ministers and spads. Rightly, Civil Service leaders understand the importance of impartiality between parties. Increasingly, however, as both the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, pointed out, they have drifted into positions on sensitive issues such as gender and race, which are also highly political without necessarily being party political.

This was accompanied by the rise of staff networks. There are 24 across government, on top of the networks in each department. There is no central oversight or even a full list of all departmental groups. These networks aim to promote inclusivity, as they define it. However, they can cross the line and undermine Civil Service impartiality as well. I will give just one example. Earlier this year, the Civil Service Muslim network was suspended after hosting speakers who encouraged staff to lobby their line managers and others on Gaza policy—a clear breach of the Civil Service Code. We need new rules now to set clear boundaries on what staff networks can and cannot do. There should be no network activity during work hours and no inappropriate lobbying of Ministers or other officials at any time.

Finally, I wish also to draw attention to the importance of the Civil Service across England, Wales and Scotland. This cannot be overstated. One area that is overlooked too often, but which has been highlighted in the Constitution Committee’s report on Permanent Secretaries, is the role of civil servants in the devolved Administrations. Further guidance is now essential to ensure that they work and spend public funds solely within their devolved competencies, safeguarding both the impartiality and integrity of the union.

Maintaining the strength and impartiality of the Civil Service is vital, as so many have pointed out. At the same time, we need to restore to Ministers their own ability to deliver on their mandate for the British people. It is not some whim of Ministers; they are the servants of the people, and they should continue to be. The Civil Service needs to back them. The Civil Service leadership needs to reorganise the changing landscape of politics and recognise the danger of taking sides on profoundly contentious issues that continue to divide the country.