Sir Philip Rutnam's Resignation

[DerekC]

It's worth listening to Sir Philip Rutnam's resignation statement verbatim :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51687287

The top civil servant in the Home Office has resigned and said he intends to claim for constructive dismissal by the government.

Sir Philip Rutnam said there had been a "vicious and orchestrated" campaign against him in Home Secretary Priti Patel's office.

Reported tensions between the pair included claims she mistreated officials - which she has denied.

The prime minister has "full confidence in his cabinet", Downing Street said.

The BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said Sir Philip's move was "highly unusual", adding: "I can't remember a senior public official taking a step like this."

Sir Philip said he received allegations that Ms Patel's conduct towards employees included "swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands".

He said that behaviour had "created fear and needed some bravery to call out".

It was his duty to "protect the health, safety and wellbeing" of 35,000 Home Office workers, he said, but that doing so had "created tension" between him and Ms Patel.

• Sir Philip Rutnam's resignation statement in full
• 'Nothing remotely normal about this resignation'
• Priti Patel 'tried to force out top civil servant'

Sir Philip, who has had a career spanning 33 years, added he had attempted a "reconciliation" with Ms Patel but that she had "made no effort to engage with me to discuss this".

He said he believed his experience was "extreme" but part of a "wider pattern" in government.

Ms Patel has not yet commented on Sir Philip's statement.

Here's his statement verbatim

"I have this morning resigned as permanent secretary of the Home Office.

I take this decision with great regret after a career of 33 years.

I am making this statement now because I will be issuing a claim against the Home Office for constructive dismissal.

In the last 10 days, I have been the target of a vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign.

It has been alleged that I have briefed the media against the home secretary.

This - along with many other claims - is completely false.

The home secretary categorically denied any involvement in this campaign to the Cabinet Office.

I regret I do not believe her.

She has not made the efforts I would expect to dissociate herself from the comments.

Even despite this campaign I was willing to effect a reconciliation with the home secretary, as requested by the cabinet secretary on behalf of the prime minister.

But despite my efforts to engage with her, Priti Patel has made no effort to engage with me to discuss this.

I believe that these events give me very strong grounds to claim constructive, unfair dismissal - and I will be pursuing that claim in the courts.

My experience has been extreme but I consider that there is evidence that it is part of a wider pattern of behaviour.

One of my duties as permanent secretary was to protect the health, safety and well-being of our 35,000 people.

This created tension with the home secretary, and I have encouraged her to change her behaviours.

I have received allegations that her conduct has included shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands - behaviour that created fear and that needed some bravery to call out.

I know that resigning in this way will have very serious implications for me personally. The Cabinet Office offered me a financial settlement that would have avoided this outcome.

I am aware that there will continue to be briefing against me now I have made this decision, but I am hopeful that at least it may not now be directed to my colleagues or the department.

This has been a very difficult decision but I hope that my stand may help in maintaining the quality of government in our country, which includes hundreds of thousands of civil servants loyally dedicated to delivering this government's agenda.

I will make no further comment at this stage."

He accuses Priti Patel pretty directly of bullying and aggression to his staff, then when confronted by him, running a campaign of briefing against him and lying about it.

Should she resign - and will she?

 

[Esker-pades]

She shouldn't have been allowed back into the Cabinet after she resigned in November 2017.

For those who don't remember:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41923007

Priti Patel has resigned as UK international development secretary amid controversy over her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials.

She was ordered back from an official trip in Africa by the PM and summoned to Downing Street over the row.

In her resignation letter, Ms Patel said her actions "fell below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated".

The PM said her decision was "right" as "further details have come to light".

Ms Patel had apologised to Theresa May on Monday after unauthorised meetings in August with Israeli politicians - including prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu - came to light.

But it later emerged she had two further meetings without government officials present in September.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's worth listening to Sir Philip Rutnam's resignation statement verbatim :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51687287

He accuses Priti Patel pretty directly of bullying and aggression to his staff, then when confronted by him, running a campaign of briefing against him and lying about it.

Should she resign - and will she?

Simple answer yes she should, and no she won't. The public sector is sadly filled with toxic characters like this, people more concerned with their own progress than actually doing their jobs well.

 

[furnessvale]

Simple answer yes she should, and no she won't. The public sector is sadly filled with toxic characters like this, people more concerned with their own progress than actually doing their jobs well.

Which one of the two are you talking about? Given the two different versions of the truth that have been issued, who knows which is correct?

 

[thejuggler]

It is highly unlikely a senior Civil Servant with 33 years service and experience of how these things work would brief the press about what is going on.

That is the job of Mr Cummings.

 

[furnessvale]

It is highly unlikely a senior Civil Servant with 33 years service and experience of how these things work would brief the press about what is going on.

That is the job of Mr Cummings.

Civil servants do not brief against their ministers?

 

[Busaholic]

Meanwhile BJ attempts to 'bury the bad news' by announcing his engagement to Carrie Symonds, who is apparently and entirely coincidentally pregnant. Presumably this will happen after his divorce, or is he going to borrow more ideas from those champions of freedom Saudi Arabia?

 

[306024]

Today is a whole Yes Minister episode. You couldn’t make it up, or perhaps you could.

 

[Mojo]

No she shouldn’t resign.

She has been a very good Home Secretary thus far and it is no surprise someone who is fundamentally opposed to her politics will attempt to discredit her.

 

[Puffing Devil]

No she shouldn’t resign.

She has been a very good Home Secretary thus far and it is no surprise someone who is fundamentally opposed to her politics will attempt to discredit her.

Really - what are her successes?

 

[GusB]

No she shouldn’t resign.

She has been a very good Home Secretary thus far and it is no surprise someone who is fundamentally opposed to her politics will attempt to discredit her.

Perhaps she shouldn't resign, but she should be suspended pending the outcome of an investigation of the various allegations - as any normal person accused of any misdemeanors would be in their "normal" jobs.

 

[Bantamzen]

Which one of the two are you talking about? Given the two different versions of the truth that have been issued, who knows which is correct?

Pritit Patel, it has long been rumoured that she wants only "Yes Minister" types around. And that is not what the Civil Service is there for.

 

[dgl]

But if you are only around "Yes Men" all the time you won't realise when you are at the point of no return. In the end policies like that will end her career.

But yes she should go, you do not go around bullying staff and just get away with it, although with the current government bullying seems to be the norm.

 

[furnessvale]

These civil servants don't know when they are well off. A hiccup last December could have seen Diane Abbott as Home Secretary.

 

[arbeia]

And there's silly old me thinking that Civil Servants were there to do the bidding of the elected Government of the day - not for them to approve or disapprove democratic decisions.

 

[Ianno87]

And there's silly old me thinking that Civil Servants were there to do the bidding of the elected Government of the day - not for them to approve or disapprove democratic decisions.

Civil Servants are there to implement the Government's policies, but give politically neutral advice in doing so.

Civil Servants have an obligation to tell the Government what they are doing is daft (if they have evidence to support this). That is not the same thing as 'disapproving' a democratic decision.

 

[arbeia]

No, it's about time the tail stopped wagging the dog. Like it or not, that's what Government Advisers are paid for. Civil servants should just push the pens that they are told to do.

 

[Adsy125]

No, it's about time the tail stopped wagging the dog. Like it or not, that's what Government Advisers are paid for. Civil servants should just push the pens that they are told to do.

They shouldn't advise ministers that what they are asking for is impossible/stupid/etc?

 

[43096]

And there's silly old me thinking that Civil Servants were there to do the bidding of the elected Government of the day - not for them to approve or disapprove democratic decisions.

No, it's about time the tail stopped wagging the dog. Like it or not, that's what Government Advisers are paid for. Civil servants should just push the pens that they are told to do.

She is accused of being a bully. Is that acceptable, then, and civil servants should just accept it?

 

[Bantamzen]

No, it's about time the tail stopped wagging the dog. Like it or not, that's what Government Advisers are paid for. Civil servants should just push the pens that they are told to do.

Civil servants are the ones charged with enacting government policy of the time, and to advise governments when policies may come with risk or serious consequences. Stick yes men in there and politicians, many of whom are far less experienced than the civil servants, and you will end up with a dysfunctional administration, not dissimilar to that emerging over the pond.

 

[DerekC]

You have to remember that when a new minister arrives they may know virtually nothing about the area they have been put in charge of, beyond what a (hopefully) reasonably well informed member of the public would know. They will be armed with their Party's policy on the subject which will probably be mostly high level woffle designed to attract votes. They will bring with them their favourite Political Advisors who will be frantically researching the subject area to try to work out what to do, whilst all the time looking over their shoulders at the media to spot a good headline and avoid elephant traps.

It's the job of the Civil Service to understand the area the department is responsible for, to know what existing law allows and does not allow, to work out how to turn the policy into changes to the law or secondary legislation. to be able to predict the likely consequences of a change and to work out whether investment complies with treasury rules. Then they have to turn that back to the minister and ask whether that's what they wanted and whether they now want to go ahead. Sometimes (as in when the Human Rights Act, or example, is infringed) they have to say no, or at least seek confirmation that the minister accepts personal responsibility for the predictable cockup or defeat in the courts. It's not a perfect system but it generally works, and trying to replace it by command and control government where civil servants have no advisory function is a recipe for disaster, in my view. The advice will then be only given by the politlcal advisors and will be totally driven by vote getting and media headline grabbing.

 

[Esker-pades]

No she shouldn’t resign.

She has been a very good Home Secretary thus far and it is no surprise someone who is fundamentally opposed to her politics will attempt to discredit her.

Firstly, the question by @Puffing Devil .
Secondly, how can you be so sure that the allegations by a number of Home Office staff are attempts to discredit her rather than an accurate description of her behaviour? What do you know in this regard that nobody else in the public does?

 

[arbeia]

They shouldn't advise ministers that what they are asking for is impossible/stupid/etc?

When they put their oar in, OK, but if Ministers decide not to take notice, that should be the end of it

 

[arbeia]

Civil servants are the ones charged with enacting government policy of the time, and to advise governments when policies may come with risk or serious consequences. Stick yes men in there and politicians, many of whom are far less experienced than the civil servants, and you will end up with a dysfunctional administration, not dissimilar to that emerging over the pond.

It just appears more and more that Senior Civil Servants have Political agendas of their own.

 

[Grumpy Git]

As has already been posted above, PP has previous "form" in duplicity.

We're getting more like the US every day.

If an allegation of bullying had been made about somone in a normal job they would be suspended. She sounds like a really horrible person to me.

 

[DerekC]

When they put their oar in, OK, but if Ministers decide not to take notice, that should be the end of it

If the Minister is prepared to confirm their instruction in writing, it is. Unless the instruction requires the Civil Servant to cause the Government to break the law. In which case they can't comply - knowingly breaking the law gets you in court and somebody else telling you to is no excuse. Ministers can't (on major issues) change the law - they have to ask Parliament to do that.

 

[DerekC]

It just appears more and more that Senior Civil Servants have Political agendas of their own.

I am afraid you haven't understood the problem. This isn't a political issue. It's about behaviour and due process.

 

[arbeia]

She is accused of being a bully. Is that acceptable, then, and civil servants should just accept it?

I'm glad you used the word accused.Nothing whatsoever proved, although some have her hung drawn and quartered. I prefer to see the outcome of due process before forming a guilty/not guilty opinion. By asking if that is acceptable, which it is not, you seem to have decided your opinion.
Not for a moment do I think that guy woke up Saturday morning and just made his little announcement. It surely was something that had been going on in his mind for a while. We have to ask if all internal grievance/disciplinary procedures had been rigorously followed.

 

[Adsy125]

I'm glad you used the word accused.Nothing whatsoever proved, although some have her hung drawn and quartered. I prefer to see the outcome of due process before forming a guilty/not guilty opinion. By asking if that is acceptable, which it is not, you seem to have decided your opinion.
Not for a moment do I think that guy woke up Saturday morning and just made his little announcement. It surely was something that had been going on in his mind for a while. We have to ask if all internal grievance/disciplinary procedures had been rigorously followed.

If you were accused of bullying staff at work, do you think you be let to keep your position while under investigation, or would you be suspended? I see no reason why PP should keep her position after such accusations have been made, if they transpire to be false she can be reinstated. However if she remains she can exert a lot of pressure for any inquiries to find that she behaved well.

 

[arbeia]

Well, to sum it up, we will just have to wait and see what happens.