BORIS Johnson’s decision to disregard the findings of a review which concluded that Home Secretary Priti Patel was guilty of bullying staff can be challenged in court, a judge has ruled.
The FDA union, which represents around 18,000 civil servants, has been granted permission to launch a judicial review of the Prime Minister’s decision.
Johnson’s decision to ignore the conclusions of the report led its author, Sir Alex Allan, to resign from his position as independent advisor on the ministerial code in November 2020.
Allan had found that Patel had been engaging in behaviour, such as shouting and swearing, “that can be described as bullying”. One occasion reportedly saw an official collapse after a particularly confrontational meeting with her.
READ MORE: Priti Patel claims her controversial asylum system overhaul plan is not 'inhumane'
Allan said that she had therefore breached the ministerial code, even if unintentionally.
However, as the sole arbiter of the rules, Johnson decided otherwise. He said she had not broken the code and told Tory MPs to “form a square around the Prittster” in order to defend the Home Secretary.
Justice Linden’s ruling today means that Johnson’s interpretation of the ministerial code can be challenged in court by the FDA.
Responding to the decision, the union’s general secretary, Dave Penman, said they were “very pleased” with the result.
Penman went on: “The ministerial code is the only means by which civil servants can raise complaints against the conduct of ministers and it is vital that decisions on this are subject to the rule of law.
“Ministers should be held to the same standards of conduct as civil servants.
“We welcome the opportunity now granted to argue that point fully that the Prime Minister erred in his interpretation of the ministerial code when deciding that the Home Secretary did not break the code.”
The allegations of bullying against Patel emerged in March 2020 after the top civil servant in the Home Office, Sir Philip Rutnam (below), quit.
Rutnam claimed that 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".
He said it was his duty to "protect the health, safety and wellbeing" of Home Office staff, but that doing so had "created tension" between him and Patel.
He ultimately accused the Home Secretary of a “vicious and orchestrated” campaign against him.
READ MORE: Is it Covid or Douglas Ross keeping sleaze-ridden Boris Johnson out of Scotland?
Rutnam aimed to take Patel to an employment tribunal, saying he had been forced out after he tried to stop her bullying staff. However, a settlement was reached beforehand, with Rutnam being handed £340,000 of taxpayer cash and £30,000 in legal costs. The Government did not accept liability.
An official in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) received a £25,000 payout after she alleged that Patel, who was employment minister at the time, had bullied her in 2015. The DWP did not admit liability and the case did not come before a tribunal.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel