A GOVERNMENT minister ordered his civil servants to draw up a secret list of “negative” officials suspected of being opposed to legislation.

The instruction was issued by Gerry Sutcliffe, the prisons minister, in an apparent breach of rules that bar ministers from politicising the civil service.

Sutcliffe also wanted a list of officials who could be trusted to act as “positive champions” for the plans to privatise the probation service and be used to persuade rebellious Labour MPs to change their minds and avert a Commons defeat.

The instruction, detailed in an e-mail, has been acquired by The Sunday Times during an investigation by the newspaper which placed Sutcliffe at the centre of a lobbying story.

This weekend MPs and senior civil service figures called for an investigation into Sutcliffe’s “wholly inappropriate” conduct, including potentially breaching the ministerial code and civil service rules.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: “It is entirely improper in the first instance for ministers to use civil servants to promote a bill that’s not yet completed its course through parliament.

“Even more improper is drawing up a list of people who oppose your policy. One can think of no other reason to do this than to punish them or gag them in some way.”

The e-mail was sent by Rachel Howell, Sutcliffe’s private secretary, on February 1 to senior Home Office officials as he faced a backbench rebellion against the government’s Offender Management (OM) Bill. If it was defeated, it could have threatened Sutcliffe’s ministerial career.

“Regarding the OM Bill, Gerry asked for a list of probation chief officers identifying the positive champions, more negative chiefs and those who were fairly neutral,” Howell wrote.

No explanation was given as to why “negative” chiefs should be named. However, it has prompted fears among civil servants that the future careers of those identified for their “negative” views could be jeopardised.

The e-mail explained that Sutcliffe “was keen to use the ‘champions’ to speak to MPs and explain why the proposals were positive”. Howell wrote that she would get a list of MPs — believed to be those from the government back benches who opposed the bill — from the Labour whips’ office. This would then be cross-referenced with the list of “champions” within the Home Office.

There is understood to have been serious concern within Whitehall at Sutcliffe’s order. One senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “For him to instruct his officials to identify the names of the negative ones is wholly inappropriate. Why is he doing it? This is saying that they don’t want any refuseniks. It’s a clear example of the politicisation of the civil service.”

Last week Sir Alistair Graham, the watchdog responsible for overseeing standards in public life, identified Tony Blair’s politicisation of the service in The Sunday Times as one of the seven “mortal sins” that had undermined public trust in government. Tomorrow, the Commons’ public administration committee will call on the government to introduce new laws to protect the impartiality of the civil service.

The e-mail was sent on the same day that Sutcliffe dined at the Baltic restaurant in central London with lobbyists, including an undercover journalist.

Lobbyists from Golden Arrow Communications subsequently claimed that Sutcliffe was prepared to hand over his private Whitehall diary to them. One, Ivan Henderson, a former MP and ministerial aide who is close to Sutcliffe, was secretly taped by the reporter, claiming Sutcliffe had offered the firm access to his diary so they could work out how to benefit from future government announcements.

Henderson said: “He [Sutcliffe] is saying to us, ‘Come on, you use me’. That is what Gerry is actually saying . . . ‘I am there to be used. I want to help you. Use me’.” Significantly, the projects being discussed by the lobbyists were plans in the Offender Management Bill to encourage greater private participation in services for released prisoners.

Henderson also alleged that Sutcliffe was frustrated with the civil service and therefore wished to use the lobbyists. “I think what he [Sutcliffe] is trying to prove to us is that civil servants have got their own agenda,” said Henderson.

Responding to the claims revealed in the tapes, Sutcliffe denied any wrongdoing. He added: “It is no surprise that I have talked to a range of people about harnessing the skills and experience of companies and other organisations to reduce reoffending.”

Senior Home Office sources, who have been shown the e-mail, are privately questioning Sutcliffe’s apparent closeness to some parts of the private sector and his apparent hostility towards certain civil servants.

Critics say that the e-mail breaches the ministerial code of conduct which sets out that ministers “have a duty to uphold the political impartiality of the civil service”.

It states: “Civil servants should not be asked to engage in activities likely to call in question their political impartiality, or to give rise to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes.”

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, claimed the Sutcliffe “list” was “sinister”. He said: “They would not want to draw up this list unless they intended to take action like blocking promotion. It cuts across objective analysis. It’s also outrageous that the week before the bill’s second reading they were asked to lobby for the bill.”

Earlier this month, after alleged “bullying” from government whips and intense efforts from Sutcliffe himself, the bill scraped through the Commons by just 25 votes after dozens of Labour MPs rebelled.

Backbench MPs claimed yesterday that they had been invited to private meetings with Sutcliffe at which civil servants were unexpectedly present. One said: “I was called to a meeting with the minister which I thought was a Labour party matter. But he had officials with him to argue his case. I thought the whole thing was highly unsavoury.”

When first asked if Sutcliffe had instructed his private office to draw up a list of chief probation officers who supported and opposed the bill, the Home Office said: “It is utterly untrue that he instructed his office to do this.”

However, when confronted with the text of the leaked e-mail, Sutcliffe altered his position. A spokeswoman later said: “There is no question the minister acted improperly or sought to undermine the political impartiality of his private office . . . It is normal to identify those supporting voices for proposed legislation.”

The e-mail sent by Howell

"Gerry asked for a list ‘ of the Probation Chief Offi cers identifying the positive champions, more negative Chiefs and those who were fairly neutral as he was keen to use the ‘champions’ to speak to MPs... "

Times Recommends

• The Times celebrates its 225th birthday
• Heath discussed IMF loan during 1974 crisis
• Britain’s loneliest café opens for business