A change of cabinet secretary is a chance for a reset

The announcement of the departure of Sir Mark Sedwill as cabinet secretary, head of the civil service and National Security Adviser cannot have been a surprise. That is not just because of the flurry of media reports in the past week. He was from the beginning seen as Theresa May’s appointment and lacked support across Whitehall. He managed many things in the post in extraordinarily difficult political times but never got a chance to bring to it his strategic sense and experience in international relations. The government will find new appointments across Whitehall – not just in the top job – a help in pursuing its agenda. It should not waste the chance to put excellent people in key posts – and should not confuse that goal with a taste for those who share its beliefs.

The manner of Sir Mark Sedwill's appointment as cabinet secretary caused problems 

The roots of the problems Sedwill encountered lay in the manner of his appointment. He was put in as acting cabinet secretary in June 2018 when Sir Jeremy Heywood was ill with cancer and prime minister Theresa May confirmed him in the post in October when Heywood formally retired (shortly before his death). Inadvertently she bequeathed Sedwill problems that any Whitehall warrior would have a job to survive.

His predecessor, known for exceptional attention to detail and grip over the machine of government, had also inspired deep affection in a generation of officials. Some saw themselves as his proteges, some as contenders to succeed him (and quite a few, as both). All the same, many agree, there was no obvious alternative to succeed Lord Heywood (as he had become). Sedwill had also worked closely with May when he was her permanent secretary at the Home Office from 2013-17. But in declining to hold a competition for the post, May ensured that Sedwill in his new role would have to grapple with a barely-suppressed surly challenge at the senior levels of the civil service from those who thought they could do his job better or should have been invited at least to make their pitch.

Mainly, that took the form of pointing out that he lacked Treasury experience. This was true, and an undoubted weakness although less than his challengers made out. The struggles of the May government were with parliament and the party; the prime questions about Brexit were not at that point economic – although Sedwill arguably lacked experience on these constitutional questions as well.

Similarly, critics pointed out that his time was stretched by his determination to hold onto the National Security Adviser post, one he thoroughly enjoyed and where his long experience in foreign and security affairs came into play (political director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2012-13, senior civilian representative in Afghanistan 2010-11 and Ambassador to Afghanistan 2009-10). That is undoubtedly true, but given his experience there, that was probably less of a shortcoming than the lack of time in the Treasury.

Sir Mark Sedwill sought to improve the skills of civil servants and define the performance of departments   

In any case, by many accounts the unease with him at senior levels of the civil service made for uncomfortable Wednesday morning meetings – the regular event when the cabinet secretary meets the permanent secretaries. The cabinet secretary’s authority over that group is more by persuasion than command and control.

That is a pity. Sedwill brought many ambitions to the job; more conceptual in some ways than Heywood, he had a desire to define the performance of departments and to improve the skills of civil servants – causes the IfG has long backed. He wanted to help develop parts of the UK outside London, and to build up civil service teams that could tackle problems stretching across the traditional Whitehall fortresses of the separate departments.

In his Afghanistan roles – when the Afghan war was not going well, especially for Britain in Helmand, but still better than the worsening tangle in Iraq – the FCO would beam him in on large screens for London press conferences. He would display an unstuffy willingness to admit setbacks as well as a knack for the diplomacy needed with the many coalition partners and Afghan contenders for power (although in the absence of an Afghanistan inquiry there is not a full account of who argued what in the UK’s ill-fated Helmand deployment). Those who have dealt with him on foreign and security matters say his insistence on keeping the National Security Adviser role stemmed from his deep knowledge of these questions and belief that he can contribute something to the solutions at a turbulent time in world affairs. As well as chairing a G7 panel on economic security when the UK takes over the presidency next year, that world may well be where he now heads.

Responding to coronavirus placed strains on relations at the top of government

He showed these survivor skills after Boris Johnson won the race to become Conservative leader, and prime minister, in striking up warm relations with the new government. One of the most circulated photographs of the morning of Johnson’s arrival into 10 Downing Street in 2019 showed Sedwill greeting the new prime minister in No.10, immaculate in blue suit, white shirt, white pocket square, with Dominic Cummings lounging in the background in grey T-shirt. Despite different styles, he and Cummings apparently worked well for some time and found common cause in the “levelling up” agenda and plans for civil service reform.

But coronavirus brought impossible strains to the relationship. The government blamed its early struggles with testing and personal protective equipment on the Whitehall machine – and therefore, at least partly on Sedwill. That may have stemmed from an overestimation of the power of the cabinet secretary as well as a failure to ascribe enough responsibility to departments or see early enough the shortcomings in the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England.  But it also seems true that Sedwill lacked his predecessor’s ferocious grip of detail right across Whitehall and the support base to make the wheels spin fast. And with tension rising, he suddenly looked to the Johnson team once again like May’s man – and perhaps, a convenient fall guy.

It is sensible of the government to split the roles that Sedwill combined. It is also wise to go through an appointment process – not least if the prime minister is considering candidates from business. It will give Sedwill’s successor more legitimacy in the eyes of senior civil servants. It will also force those officials to consider realistically whether they are candidates for the top job or not, and where their own futures lie. The shakeout, which has already claimed the permanent secretary of the FCO, is unlikely to stop with Sedwill’s exit.