Figures have shown that only seven per cent of people shortlisted for top civil service jobs were from a BAME background in 2018. That is despite the group making up 19% of applicants.

According to the Civil Service Commission’s annual report, nearly one in five applicants who applied for a job via a competition chaired by a civil service commissioner, which include some of the most senior jobs in Whitehall, identified themselves as BAME.

However, only eight per cent were considered appointable and seven per cent were shortlisted.

Public appointment rules mean all open competitions for Permanent Secretary, Director-General and Director jobs are chaired by a representative of the commission, which regulates civil service recruitment.

Commissioners also chair all internal competitions at Permanent Secretary and Director-General level, and for a few other roles on a situation basis.

The success rate for women was higher, making up 26% of commissioner-led appointments. But the figures showed 41% of shortlists and 44% of appointable candidates.

The success rate was much lower among disabled applicants. They made up six per cent of applicants, even though they made up 19% of working-age adults in the UK.

Only five per cent of those shortlisted and four per cent of those deemed appointable had a declared disability.

The report also highlighted a need to increase the number of disabled people applying for senior roles.

The commission has mainly focused on attracting more BAME candidates but for their plans over the next year, the commission said:

“We will work on understanding what needs to be done to ensure processes are not disadvantaging members of the disabled community.”

The commission’s main priority over the past year has been to increase diversity at the top of the civil service.

It has created a diversity working group and improved its use of diversity statistics and data capture to “better inform departmental outreach”.

The statistics in the report mirrored the recent increase in Senior Civil Service recruitment.

Commissioners chaired 197 appointments in 2018, up from 164 in 2017. The number of appointments being made using an exception.

The Commission’s Chief Executive Peter Lawrence said it allows departments to waive some recruitment rules when they are looking for staff with “highly specialist skills”.

He also said a full open competition is “judged to be unlikely to secure suitable appointees within the required timescale” has “reassuringly” fallen.

However, Mr Lawrence pointed out that there had been an increase in the number of complaints, from 172 in 2017-18 to 211 in 2018-19.

Thirty-two out of the 211 cases were considered by the commission. The rest were out of scope or they required a departmental investigation before it would be considered or withdrawn.

Breaches of the recruitment principles were identified in 11 of those cases. This included what Mr Lawrence called “the most serious case [it had seen] for some time”.

The report stated:

“More seriously, the successful candidate [had been] treated more favourably at sift than their actual marks merited.”

“As a result, the appointment was found to be unlawful.”

Other breaches included conflict of interests that were not declared and a failure to extend the deadline of an online test when required.

Civil Service Code appeals increased from 78 to 85. Twenty-eight of those appeals were referred back to departments for investigation.

Civil Service World reported that despite the breaches, Mr Lawrence said: “While we have identified some poor practice and breaches during the year overall, the commission retains confidence in the ability of all organisations we regulate to carry out external recruitment, and we do not believe that any require significant regulatory intervention.”

First Civil Service Commissioner Ian Watmore commented on the report. He said:

“We will continue to be innovative across a range of challenges in 2019, whether in educating departments and improving their regulatory compliance; helping departments to improve diversity in areas such as ethnicity, disability and social mobility; promoting civil servants’ understanding of the Civil Service Code and values; and continuing to take their complaints seriously when they see breaches.”