Why did the PM sign off on £250,000 for civil servant?
Politicians and civil servants have more in common than either “side” would care to admit. Apart from their very obvious dedication to serving the British public, they both share a taste for ambiguous language, the delicate drawing of a veil of bureaucratese over even the most messiest, most sordid of imbroglios. Yet sometimes the truth pokes through the obfuscation.
The recent departure of Sir Mark Sedwill, cabinet secretary and national security adviser, from government is a case in point. Reading between the lines of the very latest documentation relating to his leaving the government, it looks very much like Sir Mark may have been paid off because he threatened to take the
prime minister to an employment tribunal for unfair, ie constructive, dismissal. In such circumstances a good deal of dirty Downing Street laundry would tumble out into the public domain. Still, the usual courtesies are maintained in public.
In his earlier, oddly and obviously carefully phrased letter to the prime minister, Sir Mark states that “we have agreed that I will stand down and leave government service at the end of September”. In other words, to save embarrassment on all sides, Sir Mark was not sacked, fired, dumped or forced out; but neither did he resign or retire in any normal sense of the term. He “stood down”, a suitably euphemistic term straight from the official golden glossary. Like “stepping back”, “spending more time with my family”, “personal reasons”, “pursuing fresh opportunities”, “entirely in agreement with government policy” and many others, everyone knows what it means.
Sir Mark, in a valedictory appearance before the parliamentary National Security Committee, virtually admitted as much, while preserving certain proprieties. He was at pains to point out that it had not in fact “resigned”, and regretted the way he had been briefed against in the media, naming no obvious names.
A further clue as to what was really happening emerged in the form of a “personal minute” written by Boris Johnson recording the reasons why Sir Mark will receive some £248,189, apparently headed for Sir Mark’s pension fund. Johnson was in effect taking responsibility as “line manager” for the unorthodox payment to Sir Mark and directing the chief operating officer for the civil service, and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, Alex Chisholm, to release the public funds, given that Chisholm worked with Sedwill. Otherwise the premier could just hand money over to anyone he liked: Britain still has some standards, after all, and, with its mention of HR and legal consultations, it reflects official disquiet at such a move.
In his minute, Johnson states to Mr Chisholm that “you have advised me that this is regular and legal, and value for money to do so” – “in consideration of his employment position” and “in the circumstances of his role being split”. That is much less precise than it sounds, and invites speculation that the employment position was unfair dismissal and the circumstances that he was pushed out.
In terms of “value for money” outside a routine redundancy, such a sum only represents any kind of saving if it involves avoids the huge costs of defending a case of unfair dismissal. Were Sir Mark ever to have gone for it, it would have involved Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings submitting signed witness statements, being cross examined, probably by a QC, and having the whole thing played out in front of reporters. The cost to the taxpayer would have been: civil service time in preparing the defence; legal advice for all involved, ie solicitors and barristers; various incidental payments. The administrative damage from such a distraction and the political fallout would be incalculably severe. So it is that the Sedwill affair is over, for now. But Priti Patel remains due in court to face her former top civil servant, Sir Philip Rutnam, and if Cummings has his way many more senior Whitehall figures will feel a “hard rain” pouring down on them, albeit with the compensatory prospect of a large boost to their security in retirement.