Demand for inquiry into handling of bullying report, as Priti Patel faces judgement

Report believed to conclude that home secretary breached ministerial code

The inquiry into whether Priti Patel breached the ministerial code started seven long months ago (Getty Images)

Labour is calling for an independent investigation into whether the prime minister, Boris Johnson, interfered in an inquiry into bullying allegations against Priti Patel.

The long-running inquiry is expected to be concluded imminently – possibly as early as today – with a written warning from the prime minister to Ms Patel and a request for her to apologise, but reports suggest she will keep her job as home secretary.

It is understood that an investigation by the PM’s standards adviser Sir Alex Allan concluded that she had breached the requirement of the ministerial code to treat civil servants “with consideration and respect”.

Sources close to the investigation said it found evidence of bullying, even if it had not been intentional, with one person familiar with the report telling the BBC it was “unambiguous in stating that Priti Patel broke the ministerial code and that the prime minister buried it”.

Unions have called for an overhaul of the Whitehall complaints system, under which the prime minister is the final arbiter on ministerial standards and there is no requirement on him to publish Sir Alex’s reports.

Dave Penman, the general secretary of the FDA union for senior civil servants, said Mr Johnson had undermined the process by declaring he would “stick with Prit” and then delaying months before concluding the inquiry.

Now Labour has written to the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life calling for an investigation not only into the conduct of the home secretary, but also allegations of an attempted cover-up by Mr Johnson.

In a letter to committee chair Lord Evans of Weardale, shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds said Labour had “lost faith” in the government’s handling of the issue following “deeply worrying” reports of efforts by No 10 to suppress the report or alter its findings.

“These are deeply serious revelations and have all the hallmarks of a cover-up from the prime minister,” said Mr Thomas-Symonds.   

“We have lost faith in the government’s ability to investigate this issue and are calling on the committee to urgently investigate. Both the prime minister and home secretary must come before parliament to answer questions on this mess.” 

Both Labour and Liberal Democrats are demanding that the report into Ms Patel’s behaviour be published in full, in order to give voters confidence that any punishment handed down by the prime minister fits the scale of misbehaviour uncovered.

It is thought that Mr Johnson could withhold the full document, releasing only a summary of its findings stretching over as little as a single page.

The home secretary has been under investigation for nine months, following allegations from the former top civil servant in her department, Sir Philip Rutnam, who quit in February complaining of a “vicious and orchestrated campaign” against him. Ms Patel has denied any bullying or harassment of staff at the Home Office or other departments.

Sir Alex’s investigation is believed to have been completed and passed to the prime minister several months ago. The former head of the civil service Sir Mark Sedwill told MPs earlier this week that the report was in Mr Johnson’s hands and it was now a decision for him whether to publish it.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael has written to the PM demanding publication “in full and without further delay” and without political interference.

Allegations raised by Sir Philip of Ms Patel “shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands” would, if proven, amount to a serious breach of the ministerial code, he said.

Mr Carmichael told The Independent that if the report cleared Ms Patel of any wrong-doing, there was a case that could be made that it would not be reasonable to publish details of the complaints against her.

But he added: “If there is substantial reason to issue a warning to a cabinet minister, then we are in the territory where public confidence demands that we know just how bad the offence was. The public would need to know if this was a slap on the wrist for something which merits a more serious punishment.”

He added: “If the reason for commissioning a report is to get to the truth, then the logical next step is to publish it. If the report is not published in full, the working assumption has to be that they initiated the process in the first place in the hope of killing the story. But it hasn’t been killed.”

Any decision by the prime minister at this stage will come under renewed scrutiny when Sir Philip’s case for constructive dismissal comes up before an employment tribunal, he said.

FDA general secretary Dave Penman pointed out that Mr Johnson wrote in a  foreword to the ministerial code that “there must be no bullying and no harassment” by members of his government.

“Having pledged his support for the home secretary when the investigation began, and now sat on the report since the summer, he has already undermined confidence in this being a fair and impartial process,” said Mr Penman.

“Boris Johnson now needs to make the decision to publish the report and commit to introducing a new fully independent and transparent complaints system. This is the only way to restore any kind of faith in the process and prevent this kind of drawn-out speculation in the future, which is unfair to both victims and those accused.”

Civil service union Prospect backed calls for a more transparent system.

Deputy general secretary Garry Graham said: “The process is opaque and does not inspire confidence. This is compounded by the fact that the PM is the ultimate decision maker and clear concerns that their conclusions will influenced by what is politically the expedient thing to do as opposed to what is right.”