Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

£28m bill for ‘gagging’ ex-public officials

Civil servants receive large severance payments for signing ‘compromise agreements’ on exit

Andrew Grice
Thursday 20 June 2013 20:49 BST
Comments
Margaret Hodge described some of the payments as 'obscene'
Margaret Hodge described some of the payments as 'obscene' (Reuters)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Departing public sector workers have received severance payments totalling £28.4m in the past three years in return for “gagging clauses” stopping them from talking about their exit.

Some of the 1,053 staff were given a good reference as part of their “compromise agreements” with government departments even though they were regarded as poor performers. In a report published today, Whitehall’s spending watchdog warned that the references could help such staff land another job in the public sector.

The average “special severance payment” was £15,000 but the Ministry of Defence paid out £120,000 in one case and the Department of Health £266,000 in another. By law, “compromise agreements” are not allowed to prevent whistleblowing, but 98 per cent of the departure deals included a “confidentiality clause”. Some staff said they had felt “gagged”.

The £28.4m bill for pay-offs is almost certainly an underestimate because it does not include payments to people working for private sector firms which run public services. The National Audit Office (NAO), which uncovered the scale of the pay-offs, was given only 60 per cent of the agreements it requested.

Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said: “Compromise agreements are widely, and often legitimately used. But the lack of transparency, consistency and accountability is unacceptable.

“With the public purse under sustained pressure and services increasingly delivered at arm’s length, it is important that compromise agreements do not leave staff feeling gagged or reward the failure either of an employee or an organisation. The centre of government should get a grip on the use of compromise agreements in the public sector.”

Margaret Hodge, Labour chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, described some of the payments as “obscene”. She said: “No one has any idea if departments use these agreements excessively to reward failure or avoid unwelcome publicity. Similarly, no one knows whether individuals abuse them by moving around to hide poor performance, picking up payments as they go.”

A government spokesman said: “All departments must weigh the importance of accountability and transparency, as well as value for money for the taxpayer, against any potential benefits when choosing to make a severance payment.”

He added: “As part of our robust approach to managing public money, departments wishing to make a special severance payment which is not contractually required must also seek approval from the Treasury.

“The decision on whether confidentiality clauses are included in settlements is a matter for individual departments … confidentiality clauses can have legitimate benefits – the Government’s legal advisers provide guidance on their use and we continue to look at ways to strengthen this central guidance.”

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in