[ad_1]
Boris Johnson wasted thousands of pounds of public money by ignoring formal advice to pay a special adviser who was escorted out of Downing Street after a confrontation with Dominic Cummings.
Documents released Tuesday show that the prime minister overruled the advice of civil service chief executive John Manzoni in March that the government should seek a deal with Sonia Khan, a former adviser to then-chancellor Sajid Javid.
Johnson refused to listen to advice, which meant the case continued through November, increasing legal costs. Khan finally received between £ 50,000 and £ 100,000 in November, days after Cummings announced that he would be withdrawing from Downing Street at the end of this year. Legal sources estimate that the total costs, including Khan’s payment, could be nearly £ 200,000.
It was also revealed that Cummings received a pay raise of around £ 40,000 for his role as Johnson’s top adviser, official figures show. The prime minister’s top aide, preparing to officially leave his job on December 18, is paid between £ 140,000 and £ 144,999. It’s an increase in his salary from £ 95,000 to £ 99,999, which was published in the figures from last December.
Khan was Javid’s media adviser when in August 2019 she was escorted by police from No. 10 after Cummings accused her of misleading him about her contact with people close to former Chancellor Philip Hammond. She denied any inappropriate contact. Javid was furious to learn of her dismissal after the event.
In a letter sent on March 3, Manzoni wrote: “Given the ongoing expenses of defending the case and the possible costs that a court may impose, it is my advice, taking into account the legal and financial analysis, that it should be carried out. conduct a new negotiation to try to avoid litigation. “
Johnson responded by letter the next day. “The legal position is clear that the prime minister can withdraw consent to the appointment of any special adviser. That is the reason for the termination of employment and I am content with a letter of reasons that will be sent to the person who indicates it.
“I do not believe that people should receive more compensation than they are entitled to under their contract, and therefore I believe that this claim should be proven in litigation.”
Khan’s attorney argued that what Cummings had done personally, and not just as an agent of the employer, was actionable. It was expected that he would be cited as a witness.
Khan, 29, was accused by Cummings of lying about her conversations with Poppy Trowbridge, a former Hammond staff member. It is understood that Khan was asked to hand over his work phone and also presented his personal phone to Cummings.
The government finally paid Khan in November after a five-day hearing in the unfair dismissal case had been set for this month.
Dave Penman, the head of the FDA union, who backed Khan’s claim, said: “This is an extraordinary exchange of letters, demonstrating the depth to which the prime minister would go to pursue a vengeful agenda against a special counsel They knew he was unfairly fired.
“The prime minister was happy to waste taxpayers’ money instead of admitting he was wrong, although he knew that by issuing a ministerial order, his callous and wastefulness with public finances would eventually be revealed. It was only when they faced the cold reality of having to give an affidavit in court that they decided to come to terms. “
