Being appointed home secretary can prove a poisoned chalice

Trouble appears to come with the job of leading the Home Office, argues Sean O'Grady

There is a case for the defence of home secretary Priti Patel, though rarely heard (PA)

Given its radical nature, and the ethically-based criticism it has received from the likes of the archbishop of Canterbury, it’s not surprising that the government’s Rwanda plan for asylum seekers has encountered resistance among civil servants charged with trying to make it work.

Home Office staff have made clear they feel “nothing but the deepest shame” – among a number of similar messages. We already knew that senior civil servants who advised against the scheme on the grounds of practicality and cost (rather than morality) were told by the home secretary, Priti Patel, that it was going ahead whether they liked it nor not. They then requested she make a written direction to them to that effect, an unusual move designed to protect civil servants from having to take personal responsibility for potentially unlawful or problematic policies.

It is not an ideal situation, and reflects a difficult relationship between Ms Patel and those who try to serve her. Not so long ago her former permanent secretary, Sir Philip Rutnam had reached a settlement of £340,000, having alleged what he described as a “vicious and orchestrated campaign” against him for challenging the alleged mistreatment of civil servants. Ms Patel has consistently rejected Rutnam’s claims.

In 2020, it was found by the independent adviser on ministerial conduct that Ms Patel had “not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect”. The adviser, Sir Alex Allan, added: “Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.”

So Ms Patel has been accused of behaviour “that can be described as bullying”, of ignoring her advisers and implementing a refugee policy that is “the opposite of the nature of god”. Yet, unhappy as all of that is, trouble at the Home Office is far from new. There is a case for the defence for Ms Patel, though rarely heard.

As has been pointed out in recent weeks, Labour home secretaries also looked at innovative and “21st century” solutions to an asylum crisis that has been going on under governments of all parties for the best part of three decades. It’s fair to add that it didn’t involve permanent transportation to Rwanda, but off-shoring processing was a consideration, though the then government thought better of the idea.

Nor is Ms Patel the first home secretary to promulgate a policy that is judged immoral. While Theresa May managed to escape blame for the “hostile environment” approach and the Windrush scandal by getting to No 10, her successor, Amber Rudd did carry the can for the public outrage about unlawful deportations, and had to resign.

As for ignoring top advisers, that’s nothing new either. Jacqui Smith, as home secretary apparently refused to even engage with the chief adviser on drugs about the classification of ecstasy. Professor David Nutt was in due course sacked by Smith’s successor, Alan Johnson. John Reid notoriously declared the department “not fit for purpose” in 2006. And of course there is the folk memory of Jeremy Paxman interviewing the then-home secretary Michael Howard. In 1997 “Paxo” asked Mr Howard a dozen times whether he had overruled the then head of the Prison Service, Derek Lewis, about the possible dismissal of the head of Parkhurst Prison. Howard’s evasive responses helped the Newsnight interview reach legend status.

In fact very few leave the post of home secretary with their reputation enhanced. Apart from May, Roy Jenkins, the last liberal-minded incumbent with an impressive record of reform on gay rights and divorce, was the most creative and successful, though Kenneth Clark, a bit of a social liberal, seemed to enjoy himself more than most.

Almost all the others over the past few decades, Labour and Conservative, have been extreme social conservatives to the point of being reactionaries. The resignation rate is high, though sometimes for reasons unrelated to policy. Notable resignations from the job include those by David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, Reginald Maudling and Leon Brittan. It is not a “lucky” department.

Trouble appears to come with the job of home secretary. Historically a sprawling “great office of state”, established in 1782, its responsibilities used to include such thorny areas as the BBC and prisons. Every time there was a prison break or a break-in at Buckingham Palace, say, the home secretary of the day used to have to endure ritual humiliation.

Even in its slimmed down state today, the ministerial team still has to wrestle with some of the most troublesome of challenges: immigration, nationality and asylum; control of drugs; policing; counterterrorism and part of the security services. With such a portfolio you can’t really win.