Whitehall has always been a source of dubious post-brexit scare stories. But today's is particularly odd | thearticle

So the chief of MI6 will not be allowed to retire because of Brexit? Of all the things that have so far been blamed on Britain’s departure from the EU, this item of news must be one of the

oddest — not least the fact that it has made headlines. For a start, why was Alex Younger, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), as MI6 is known in Whitehall, due to retire in

November anyway? He is only 55. He has only held office for five years. Many people are only just getting into their stride at that age. If compulsory retirement in their mid-fifties had

applied to politicians, for example, several of our greatest prime ministers — including Disraeli, Gladstone and Churchill — would never have led the country. That we are living longer on

average must be obvious even to the Civil Service, whose employment practices presumably dictate Mr Younger’s retirement. Sixty years ago, however, when life expectancy was much lower, Sir

Richard (“Dick”) White became “C” (as the MI6 chief is known) in 1956 and held the post until 1968. He was the “M” (to use Ian Fleming’s invented code name) for whom James Bond would have

worked, if Bond had existed, at the height of the Cold War. And yet Dick White was 62 when he retired, after a record 12 years in office. Presumably he was regarded as the best man for the

job, if not indispensable. And that was despite various spy scandals on his watch, from the exposure of George Blake to the defection of Kim Philby. So there is no good institutional reason

why the present “M” should have to retire at 55. If, as we are told, Alex Younger is being kept on for a couple of years, presumably as a safe pair of hands during the difficult Brexit

transition period, this begs a question. Why should “C” be treated differently? What is the threat that Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, the two ministers to whom Mr Younger reports, are worried

about? To this, no answers are forthcoming. It is no secret that the career civil service is institutionally conservative and hence heavily invested in the European Union. Whitehall has

been a prime source of post-Brexit scare stories, including examples of the damage to British security and intelligence that a no-deal Brexit would inflict. Ordinary members of the public

have no way of checking these stories, which are usually attributed (as is this one about MI6 in _ The Times _ ) to shadowy “Whitehall sources”. We do know that the Prime Minister has also

cited Brexit to justify the appointment of Sir Mark Sedwill not only as Cabinet Secretary (following the death in office of Sir Jeremy Heywood last October) but also as National Security

Adviser. As such, Sir Mark will continue to work closely with Mr Younger and it may be that their partnership is deemed to be essential for the period of upheaval in national security

following Brexit. What ought to be clear, however, is that Mr Younger’s extension of tenure is no cause for alarm. As the anonymous source quoted in _ The Times _ says: “The five-year stint

[for “C”] is not set in concrete.” One would hope not. If the mandarins can conceive of no greater disruption than the postponement of a senior official’s retirement by a couple of years,

then the crisis cannot be quite as serious as we have been led to believe. If anything, it would be good to see much more evidence that Britain’s “secret state” is girding its loins to meet

the challenge of life outside the EU. Post-Brexit, the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing arrangement with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand will carry on, but much else will change.

The multiple threats posed by hostile elements in Russia, China and the Islamic world are not going anywhere. Brexit ought to be a wake-up call for all the security services, including SIS.

Whitehall may have been shaken; it has yet to be stirred into action.