Philip Rutnam is right to defend the principles of good government

Editorial: It takes something out of the ordinary to drive your own permanent secretary to take the unprecedented step that Sir Philip took

Sir Philip Rutnam’s departure from his post at the head of the Home Office is a constitutional innovation (BBC)

Senior civil servants do not go public about their disagreements with ministers lightly. No permanent secretary has ever resigned and announced their intention to sue the government for constructive dismissal before. Sir Philip Rutnam’s departure from his post at the head of the Home Office is, therefore, a constitutional innovation.

Sir Philip’s allegations about the conduct of Priti Patel, the home secretary, are serious. He says she was responsible for a “vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign” against him; that she refused to engage with him in an attempt at reconciliation; and that he “received allegations that her conduct has included shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands”.

Plainly, there are two sides to this argument. “Allies” of Ms Patel say that Sir Philip is too cautious, having warned her that the department would struggle to deliver its huge Brexit workload. They admit that leaving the EU requires an ambitious programme – a new immigration system, a new border inspection regime, and a new settlement scheme for the 3.2 million EU citizens in the UK, all by the end of the year – but they feel he was obstructing it rather than making it happen.

Ms Patel’s case would be stronger if she had not already lost a cabinet post for flouting constitutional conventions. As international development secretary, she seemed to use a family holiday in Israel to conduct an independent foreign policy. Neither her own civil servants nor the prime minister (nor Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, she later said) knew about her meetings with Israeli officials, and Theresa May asked her to resign.

An effective cabinet minister has to work through the civil service in the British system. If there are differences of personality or doubts about competence, a good politician knows how to negotiate discreetly to have an official moved. It would seem, then, that Ms Patel is neither an effective minister nor a good politician. If it is true that she shouts and swears at officials, that would reinforce this impression.

Of course, some leading ministers are forceful characters, and sometimes they may behave badly. Gordon Brown was said to kick furniture in frustration, and most civil servants are no strangers to coarse language. But it takes something out of the ordinary to drive your own permanent secretary to take the unprecedented step that Sir Philip took yesterday.

Whatever qualities Ms Patel may have, it must be doubted that they include the skills needed to get the best out of a difficult and demoralised department, at a time when it faces the huge logistical challenge of managing our departure from the EU.

Sir Philip spoke in his statement of his hope that “my stand may help in maintaining the quality of government in our country”. The permanent, impartial civil service is a valuable resource. If it is managed well and with respect, it can achieve great things in delivering the policies of elected governments, regardless of party or views on Europe.

Sir Philip tried to make this point in his statement, paying tribute to “hundreds of thousands of civil servants, loyally dedicated to delivering this government’s agenda”.

The prime minister should listen to him, and ask himself whether Ms Patel staying in her post makes it more or less likely that the Home Office will succeed in delivering the ambitious changes asked of it.