It is a firm rule that ministers cannot dismiss civil servants that displease them or offer unwelcome advice (but see my comment below about the dismissal of Permanent Secretaries following the appointment of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister).
If a minister cannot stand a particular official, the latter is usually moved to a different job. Much more detail is here. It follows that, if a Secretary of State falls out with their Permanent Secretary, there then needs to be a triangular discussion involving the Secretary of State, the Cabinet Secretary and the civil servant. Where possible, this leads to two or more Permanent Secretaries swapping places.
Sometimes, though, this is impossible. Other Secretaries of State may refuse to accept what they see as a tainted official, or there may be no available post which is senior enough within the Permanent Secretary pecking order. But, if it is not addressed, the poor relationship at the top of a department can lead to serious damage both to the minister and the department, and hence to the wider government. The Permanent Secretary must then leave the civil service.
Such departures do not generally reflect badly on either the Secretary of State or the official, (though see below for the consequences of the 2022 dismissal of Treasury Permanent Secretary Tom Scholar). Cabinet Ministers are entitled to work with someone that they find reasonably congenial. And no-one gets to be a Permanent Secretary unless they have shown that they can work well, over a long career, with a large number and variety of ministers of all political persuasions. Former Cabinet Secretary Robin Butler noted (in a letter to the Times in September 2020) that "It is especially important in the case of the head of the civil service that the appointee should be endorsed as politically non-partisan. When I was head of the service, I was authorised by the prime minister of the day to confirm informally with the leader of the opposition that those chosen for important civil service appointments were acceptable also to his party."
Indeed, Permanent Secretaries often work with several Secretaries of State before finding one that doesn't like them. Simon McDonald, who was eased out of the Foreign Office in 2020, noted that in his five years as Permanent Secretary he had worked for 22 junior ministers, 4 Foreign Secretaries, 3 Prime Ministers and 1 Queen.
The departure is therefore usually reasonably amicable. There can be financial compensation for the official in the form of an early retirement package (though these are modest compared with private sector equivalents). And prestigious jobs can be found in higher education or the charitable sector.
It was concerning that the Boris Johnson government oversaw the loss of several Permanent Secretaries in 2020. There were probably four important factors in the background to this highly unusual development.
- The senior ranks of the Civil Service were undoubtedly very concerned about the way in which Ministers were approaching the Brexit and post-Brexit negotiations following the 2016 referendum. Their speaking truth to power will probably not have gone down at all well.
- The Prime Minister's principal adviser Dominic Cummings made it clear that he had no time for most senior civil servants. He was also keen to centralise decision making in or near Number 10, which will have been unwelcome to most Permanent Secretaries on both practical and constitutional grounds. The Times and others reported that he had told political aides that a “hard rain is coming” after detailing the shortcomings of an “incoherent” Cabinet Office.
- The government appallingly mishandled the early (and some of the later) stages of the COVID-19 crisis, completely disregarding well established good practice in handling crises. But it will have wanted to deflect criticism away from ministers.
- More generally, Whitehall, as well as many public services, encountered Brexit and COVID-19 following years of staff cuts and lack of investment driven by austerity. It had also maybe not fully recovered from the turmoil of the LibDem coalition years. (19 out of the 20 Perm Secs had either left or been moved between departments between the 2010 general election and 2013.) By 2020, therefore, the whole of the UK public sector lacked resilience and any spare capacity. Its performance in some areas may very well have been poor, but Ministers were hardly likely to realise that they and their predecessors were to blame for this.
- Permanent Secretaries had, since 2013, been appointed on five year fixed term contracts. By 2020, therefore, it had become much easier to ease Permanent Secretaries out of their offices, whilst simultaneously sending clear messages to the others that they had better behave – or else!
The first Permanent Secretary to go was Philip Rutnam at the Home Office who fell out so badly with Home Secretary Priti Patel that he refused compensation and instead claimed to have been unfairly and constructively dismissed because of her bullying. He claimed that there had been a "vicious and orchestrated" campaign against him in the department. His case was so strong that he was eventually offered (and accepted) £340,000 so that the ministers could avoid an employment tribunal hearing.
(The background to his dismissal included claims that the Home Secretary had bullied several members of staff. But Prime Minister Johnson said that he continued to have "full confidence" in Priti Patel following a report concluding she had "unintentionally" breached the ministerial code in her behaviour towards civil servants. The report's author, Sir Alex Allen, quit after the PM rejected his findings. Ironically, if that is the right word, Mr Johnson had gone considerably further than his predecessors when, in 2019, he included this paragraph in his foreword to the Ministerial Code:(emphasis added):
There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking; no breach of collective responsibility. No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The precious principles of public life enshrined in this document – integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest – must be honoured at all times; as must the political impartiality of our much admired civil service.)
Hugh Pemberton's commentary on Philip Rutnam's dismissal is here.
Clare Moriarty left the civil service in March 2020 following the abolition of her department (The Department for Exiting the European Union). It is not known whether she was would have accepted another appointment if indeed one had been offered, as she was recovering from a serious illness But many wanted her to stay. Civil Service World commented as follows:
“This is sad news,” CSW columnist and former senior civil servant Andrew Greenway tweeted. “I’ve often been critical of leadership in the CS. Clare was a perm sec who espoused the best of the service’s traditional strengths while pushing it towards the internet era. Her empathy and ability will be much missed.” As this tribute implies, Moriarty developed a leadership style that felt refreshingly open and modern in a civil service that talks the inclusivity talk, but doesn’t always walk the walk. Many wanted to see her take her this model of stewardship to the very top of the organisation. It was a surprise then when news emerged a few weeks ago that – after seven departments and 35 years – she would be leaving the civil service at the end of March.
Richard Heaton left the Ministry of justice in the summer, at the end of his initial five year appointment period. I understand that the Justice Secretary wanted him to stay, but the application had to be considered by the Prime Minister (or more likely Dominic Cummings) and Mr Heaton only learned of his departure as it was tagged on to the statement by No 10 announcing the departure of Mark Sedwill - see further below. This was a pretty shabby way to treat anyone, let alone such a distinguished public servant.
Simon McDonald left the Foreign Office in the late summer, having originally said that he would stay on for a few months to oversee the merger of the FCO and DfID - see further below. This apparently spiteful sacking had perhaps been Prime Ministerial revenge:-
- Sir Simon had worked for Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary and then for Dominic Raab, neither of whom were regarded as strong or effective in the role, so there will have been tensions in their relationships.
- He had in particular had to become quite forceful when Mr Johnson had refused, for three, weeks, to leave his official Carlton House residence after resigning as Foreign Secretary.
- According to the media, Sir Simon had 'been forced to make U-turn on his claim to MPs that the UK made a “political decision” not to join an EU scheme to source ventilators to treat coronavirus patients. He later declared he had been “incorrect” in his comments to the Foreign Affairs Committee, prompting speculation he had been ordered to recant by Downing Street.'
- He had also undoubtedly opposed the speed of the merger that autumn of the Foreign Office and Department for International Development. This had been planned for 2021 so as to allow time to tackle a number of complexities, including the need to knit together two quite different cultures, pay systems etc. In the event, the rushed merger may have led to some of the problems that occurred during the very rushed 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan.
The manner of Jonathan Slater's dismissal caused little short of outrage amongst most commentators. He was evicted from the Education Department in August 2020 with only five days notice. Even worse, his Secretary of State had apparently told him that his job was safe only days before he learned via the press that the Prime Minister wanted him to leave. Although this followed the department's fairly dreadful handling of the education (schools, FE and HE) aspects of the COVID-19 crisis, including some impressive u-turns over the grading of pupils who had been unable to site A-level and GCSE exams, very few thought that the errors should be attributed to Mr Slater alone, if indeed at all. The Secretary of State had, for a start, issued a ministerial direction to Ofqual in March including detailed instructions on how Ofqual should approach their task:
'Ofqual should also mandate the method of calculating final grades based on the evidence provided for each student. Ofqual should ensure, as far as is possible, that qualification standards are maintained and the distribution of grades follows a similar profile to that in previous years'.
It was widely assumed that the Prime Minister had required someone to fall on their sword but ordained that that someone was not to be the Cabinet Minister Gavin Williamson. - a reversal of the normal acceptance of responsibility in these circumstances.
It was noticeable that, although the Head of Ofqual (the exams regulator) also resigned, she remained a civil servant and returned to her home department, the Cabinet Office.
Last, but not least, Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill left in September following acres of press reports that he was to be sacked. The Telegraph said that Downing Street regarded Mr Sedwill as "too much of a Europhile and establishment figure" to be in post through planned Whitehall reforms. It is worth noting, too, that Sir Mark’s previous career (mainly in defence and national security) was probably not ideal preparation for his new role, especially given the pressure of the Brexit negotiations and preparations, and the CIVID-19 pandemic. There will have been tensions, too, resulting from Dominic Cummings’ determination to centralise decision making in Number 10. These issues are explored at greater length in a separate blog.
The departures of Richard Heaton and Jonathan Slater were so clearly ordered by the Prime Minister as to call into question my assertion, above, that ‘ministers cannot dismiss civil servants’. The sackings may have been designed to show Permanent Secretaries that they have no job security and they should watch their step, though – as in all the best authoritarian systems – watching their step may well not save them. It did not appear that Prime Minister Johnson had any interest in or loyalty towards the civil service as an institution of which he was supposed to be the custodian as Minister for the Civil Service.
It was, of course, also the case that the Cabinet Secretary was in no position to object to the two dismissals, as he was himself serving his notice period. It remains to be seen whether Simon Case (Sir Mark’s successor) will be able to withstand unreasonable pressure from the Prime Minister and his aides, or whether he was chosen for his ability to bend to Prime Ministerial will.
Let's not forget, though, that this is not the first time that Whitehall has got excited about minister/Permanent Secretary relations. One persistent theme, as the 2010+ LibDem coalition passed the mid-point of its term in office, was ministers’ dissatisfaction with Permanent Secretaries in particular. There were several ‘fallings-out’ and Perm Sec resignations, which at least went to show that ministers did wield considerable power in this area if they chose to use it. Indeed, as noted above, there was by 2013 only one Perm Sec in post who had been in post in 2007, and 19 out of the 20 Perm Secs had either left or been moved between departments since the 2010 general election. The downside, of course, was that the 19 were often inexperienced and/or working in departments whose issues, strengths, weaknesses and organisation they did not understand at all well – a fact which was all too apparent to their staff. It was probably also a significant contributory factor in the poor performance of the coalition and subsequent governments.
Ivan Rogers' resignation in 2017 was an example of a less-than-amicable but nevertheless necessary departure. His disagreement with the government's Brexit negotiation strategy was so profound that he resigned before he was dismissed.
A 2021 interview with ex-Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill may be found here. It does not give me the impression that he saw it as his role to challenge the Prime Minister. In particular he seems to have been pretty passive around the time of the sacking of the various Permanent Secretaries, and of course his own dismissal.
Newly appointed Prime Minister Liz Truss and newly appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng dismissed Treasury Permanent Secretary Tom Scholar on their first day in office in September 2022. As explained at the beginning of this note, they were entitled to do so if they felt that the alternative would be to enter into a strained working relationship, and Sir Tom could not sensibly be asked to take a less prestigious job. As so often though, the dismissals said more about the character and policies of the ministers. The markets duly reacted very strongly to the combination of Tom Scholar's dismissal and Kwasi Kwarteng's subsequent mini-budget. This in due course led to the collapse of the Truss administration.
Jill Rutter set the controversy in context, and foresaw the reaction, in this piece:
Treasury permanent secretaries have had a rough time when administrations change before. In 1979 the then permanent secretary, Sir Douglas Wass, gave uncomfortable advice to the new Chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, about his proposed budget. Although he remained in post for another couple of years, he was marginalised and Howe established closer relationships with other senior civil servants. One, Sir Peter Middleton, predictably went on to replace Wass. Meanwhile, the key ideological appointment was a new chief economic adviser more sympathetic to the government’s monetarist approach. That led to the appointment of Terry Burns in his early 30s – which was seen as extremely young in a civil service which was still very age bound at the time.
Burns eventually became permanent secretary but had his own falling out with a new Chancellor – in this case, Gordon Brown. He and Brown had a scratchy relationship from the start over the decision to take supervision of financial institutions away from the Bank of England when it was given independence to set interest rates. Burns hung on for a year, then left, and was replaced by another Treasury lifer, Sir Andrew Turnbull. Meanwhile Ed Balls, Brown’s policy brain, made the transition from special to Chief Economic Adviser.
But on Tuesday night the incoming Chancellor sacked his permanent secretary as his first act. This may have been partly personal – it could be that Scholar crossed Liz Truss when she was Chief Secretary (no Treasury permanent secretary ever has much time for the No.2 minister at the Treasury) and she was determined on payback.
Or it could be the opening shot in the war on the Treasury ‘orthodoxy’ that the new government sees as a barrier to the UK’s brighter economic future. But the Treasury knows its role is to give what it regards as the best advice, but then to implement the decisions ministers make. Ministers have often overruled Treasury advice, as is their absolute prerogative – and as Howe did in 1979. But Kwasi Kwarteng decided against even giving Scholar a brief chance to see if they could get on – a decision that has been attacked by a number of previous Conservative Treasury ministers.
Inevitably overshadowed by the death of the Queen, Kwarteng and Truss’s decision looks like an attack on the impartiality of the civil service, applying a new ideological compatibility test to appointments. They have probably alienated many staff in the Treasury who looked up to Scholar. They have lost an official with an unrivalled track record of managing the economic fallout of crises – in the middle of a major economic crisis.
Externally, they are risking their credibility with markets, at a time when the pound is feeble, already spooked by their attacks on independent institutions such as the OBR and the Bank of England. And they have made life much tougher for any potential successor who risks being seen as a yes-person. ... Kwarteng may think he has stamped his authority on HMT. But he may find instead that he has made his already hard task even harder.
This letter to the Times was also interesting, particularly for its attack on Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.
Lord Agnew of Oulton’s attack on Sir Tom Scholar and the Treasury (“PM was right to sack Tom Scholar from the Treasury”, Thunderer, Sep 13) follows an age-old formula: if you cannot get your way in government, attack the civil service and throw in a few slurs about metropolitan elites on the way. The sad fact is that in sacking Sir Tom Scholar, one of the ablest civil servants of his generation, the prime minister and chancellor have sent a clear message to the civil service that they are not interested in impartial advice and intend to surround themselves with “yes” men and women. That is a sure route to bad decision-making and weak government. It is also another small step on the road to politicising the civil service.
It is disappointing that the cabinet secretary, whom the prime minister apparently now intends to retain (“Truss decides against sacking Case”, Sep 12; letter, Sep 13), has acquiesced in the sacking and once again failed to stand up for the values of the civil service.
Sir David Normington - Home Office permanent secretary 2006-10; first civil service commissioner 2011-16