[ad_1]
Boris Johnson’s former adviser on ministerial standards was prevented from interviewing a key witness for his formal intimidation investigation against Priti Patel.
Legal and Whitehall sources have revealed that Sir Alex Allan attempted to interview former senior Home Office official Sir Philip Rutnam about his dealings with Patel, but was blocked by government officials.
Allan’s intimidation investigation was launched by the prime minister following Rutnam’s resignation over Patel’s alleged behavior and is suing the government for constructive dismissal. Sources say that Allan was informed that he could not interview Rutnam for his independent investigation due to legal action.
However, Allan felt that his investigation was being denied potentially crucial evidence. The inability of the prime minister’s former ethics adviser to question Rutnam also sparked a “spirited dispute” within the government’s legal department.
Still, he found enough material to conclude that Patel had broken the code governing the behavior of ministers.
On Friday, Allan resigned after the prime minister took the unprecedented step of exonerating Patel, who has refused to resign.
“Allan did his best to be as fair to the interior secretary as possible, but the weight of the evidence was such that he still concluded that Patel had intimidated the staff,” said a legal source.
Following the revelation on Friday that Patel’s behavior had violated the rules, he claimed he was unaware of his conduct. However, if Allan had been allowed to question Rutnam, it would clearly have undermined his defense.
Questions arose Saturday about whether Johnson had tried to tone down the bullying report amid claims that Allan had resisted pressure to make the findings more “acceptable.”
Sources with knowledge of Allan’s investigation into Patel confirmed that he had been under “a lot of pressure.”
It has also emerged that Allan’s investigation was carried out much faster than previously reported and that it was on the prime minister’s desk in April. It means Johnson chose to sit on his damning findings for seven months until the pressure grew so intense that he had no choice but to go public with his findings.
Meanwhile, the pressure on Johnson continued to mount. Former Home Secretary and veteran conservative Ken Clarke expressed concern over the prime minister’s refusal to fire Patel, adding that he was concerned about the “uncomfortable situation.”
Another former Home Secretary, Jack Straw, told the Observer that Patel’s harassment appeared to stem from a deep misunderstanding of how his department works.
“The stance he takes is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the problems at the Interior Ministry,” said Straw, secretary of the interior from 1997 to 2001.
Meanwhile, a former Conservative cabinet minister said that the fact that Patel could survive was extraordinary enough, but equally incredible was the prime minister’s behavior in rallying his MPs in an effort to defend her.
The main figure, now on the back benches, said: “He [Johnson] it has a formal role, a kind of judicial role, in the process. You should at least try to show respect for that. Instead, just hold up two fingers during the entire process. “
Away from Westminster, senior figures in the immigration and asylum industry said Patel’s refusal to resign had destroyed whatever “political legitimacy” he had left.
Bella Sankey of Detention Action, whose legal action against the deportation flights last February sparked accusations that Patel harassed top Interior Ministry officials, said she had become a “joke” figure among many.
She said: “The idea that she is viewed credibly or that she is someone who has any political legitimacy or influence given these revelations is gone. Given her conduct, rhetoric and politics since she became Secretary of the Interior, it has become synonymous with a joke. “
Sankey also pointed to claims by some Patel supporters that the attacks on the Home Secretary had overtones of sexism and racism. “I am a proud mestizo woman; a woman of color in public life is something that should be celebrated en masse, but that does not mean that there are lower standards that people are expected to maintain based on their gender and ethnicity ”.
Sankey added: “She doesn’t credit any of those characteristics by not doing the honorable thing in this situation, which is considering her position.”
Jacqueline McKenzie, the attorney representing 200 victims of the Windrush scandal, said: “We don’t know all the details yet, but what we do know worries me. Here is a department responsible for formulating and implementing policies targeting some of the most vulnerable people in society, including migrants, refugees, trafficked persons, victims of crime and abuse, and those affected by the Windrush scandal.
“I want to be sure that the person who runs this job meets the highest standards of professionalism and responsibility. I also expect this from your senior managers. “
