Patel broke ministerial rules on behaviour
Home Secretary is unlikely to face action after violation of ministerial code ruled ‘unintentional’
Priti Patel “unintentionally” breached the ministerial code on behaviour, according to an inquiry into allegations she bullied civil servants. However, the inquiry also found the Home Secretary had become “justifiably frustrated” by obstructive mandarins who failed to tell her about the impact of her behaviour. The investigation was prompted by the resignation of Philip Rutnam, the former Home Office permanent secretary, in February.
PRITI PATEL “unintentionally ” breached the ministerial code on behaviour, according to an inquiry into allegations she bullied civil servants.
However, the inquiry also found the Home Secretary had become “justifiably frustrated” by obstructive mandarins who failed to tell her about the impact of her behaviour. The investigation was prompted by the resignation of Philip Rutnam, the former Home Office permanent secretary, in February.
He alleged there was a “vicious and orchestrated campaign” against him, and claimed Ms Patel’s behaviour led to a climate of fear in the Home Office.
Ms Patel has consistently denied all claims of bullying. One source said last night: “If she is forced to apologise, it means the civil service has taken over.”
The investigation report by Sir Alex Allan, the Government’s independent adviser on standards, has not been published but is being considered by Boris Johnson. Sources said the Prime Minister would make a decision “imminently”, possibly as early as today. But he is not expected to dismiss Ms Patel and government sources played down claims that she might get a warning or be told to apologise.
Responding to the allegations in April, Mr Johnson said he would “stick with Prit”, who he said was doing an “outstanding job” as Home Secretary.
The investigation extended to allegations of bullying at two of Ms Patel’s previous departments, in the Treasury and International Development.
The report is said to have concluded she had “not met the requirements of the ministerial code to treat civil servants with consideration and respect,” but judged that this was not intentional. It is also understood to have concluded the civil service needed to reflect on its role, and had failed to be as “flexible” as it could have been in responding to her requests and directions.
Sources disclosed the report found Ms Patel had legitimately not always felt supported by the Home Office and was justifiably frustrated by its lack of “responsiveness, flexibility and lack of support”.
Ms Patel is also said to have not received any feedback on the impact of her behaviour, which meant she was unaware of any issues that she could otherwise have been addressed.
“The department needed more supportive leadership and that was clearly a contributory factor,” said one government source.
The report is understood to note that since the departure of Sir Philip there had been “different and more positive” behaviour.
As Prime Minister, Mr Johnson is the ultimate arbiter of the ministerial code, and there is no requirement to publish Sir Alex’s report, although there may be a résumé released of the key findings.
Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA senior civil servants’ union, said civil servants would be asking what message it sent if the Government suggested Ms Patel did not have to resign over a “little bit of bullying”. He added: “We need an independent process that’s not relying upon a prime minister making a political judgment rather than j udging based on the evidence.”
Nick Thomas-symonds, the shadow home secretary, said: “This has all the hallmarks of a cover-up from the Prime Minister and raises f undamental questions about his judgment.
“His actions are all but condoning bullying in the workplace. Yet again, it seems to be one rule for them and another for everyone else.”
Ms Patel resigned as international development secretary in 2017 after breaching the ministerial code but returned as Home Secretary under Mr Johnson in July 2019.