[ad_1]
The Cabinet Office report on whether or not Priti Patel harassed his public officials has been sitting on the prime minister’s desk for months.
Since March, political reporters have asked about the progress of the Home Secretary’s investigation almost daily, but Boris Johnson’s official spokesman has told them: “I have no update for you.”
It is not entirely clear why this week was chosen as the time to finally publish the findings, but the controversial nature of the prime minister’s response could at least explain why there was a delay in the number 10 to present it.
Sir Alex Allan, his independent adviser on ministerial ethics, had concluded Mrs. Patel he had behaved in a manner that constituted intimidation and violated the ministerial code.
Priti Patel behaved in a manner that amounted to bullying, an independent ethics advisor said
It would then normally be up to the prime minister to determine whether such an offense constitutes a dismissible offense.
Instead, Johnson decided that was irrelevant. because in his eyes there was no gap.
He was within his right to make that call, because he has the last word on code-related matters, but it is a fact that there is no precedent for the prime minister to contradict the conclusion of his ministerial ethics advisor after such an investigation.
Sir Alex’s response was to immediately resign from his position.
The rationale given by No. 10 for this unprecedented approach was that the prime minister had to consider the matter “in the round.”
His spokesperson said Mr johnson it had concluded that there was no violation because any crime caused was involuntary and that the Secretary of the Interior had not been informed of it. He went on to say that since Ms Patel had made an “unreserved apology”, the matter was now “closed”.
But is it? Has the “unreserved apology”, as Ms. Patel herself described it, done enough to make the problem go away? The short answer is no.
Opposition politicians are already expressing their outrage that the Interior Secretary’s apology was for the discomfort caused, rather than the behavior itself.
The full publication of the report is another topic that is likely to endure.
Boris Johnson has stayed with his Home Secretary
The government has said that the final document cannot be published without compromising the private information of those who provided evidence.
Yet Yvette Cooper, who chairs the Internal Affairs Select Committee, has already requested a copy for scrutiny of whether key evidence has been overlooked in the summary that was released Friday. A political dispute will ensue if that is denied.
Similarly, Lord Evans, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has said Sir Alex’s resignation was “deeply disturbing” and indicated that it will now be considered as part of his ongoing investigation into the ministerial code.
On top of all that, the former senior official whose resignation prompted the investigation in the first place has raised questions about whether the findings presented Friday were accurate.
Sir Philip Rutnam, who resigned as permanent secretary of the Home Office in February, has said that it is false to claim that the Home Secretary was not informed of the crime that caused her behavior.
In a statement, Sir Philip said that Ms. Patel had been warned about yelling at staff in August and September of last year, and again in February of this year.
All of this is likely to be raised in the labor court that Sir Philip has brought for what he claims was a constructive dismissal.
But that court, if it goes ahead, is not expected to be held until next September.
Select committees that indicate they want to investigate these issues are unlikely to move particularly quickly.
Given that the reaction from conservative banks has broadly supported the prime minister’s decision, it is possible to see why Downing Street decided to publish the findings on Friday.
Sir Philip Rutnam resigned as permanent secretary of the Home Office in February. Stock Image
The matter may not be as closed as Johnson says, but since the next few weeks are likely to be dominated by a focus on spending review, Brexit talks, vaccine launches and disputes over changing restrictions on the coronavirus, the scope for this topic to stay at the top of the agenda is limited.
That doesn’t mean that Patel is safe in his post forever.
There is no doubt that this process has damaged her and there is a good chance that she will raise her head again.
But Issue 10 seems to have concluded that the storm created by the tenure of an Interior Secretary, who is popular with Conservative MPs and party members alike, will soon be washed away by the biggest political storms on the horizon.
