Paying the price of saying, ‘No, minister’

By Amit Roy

SHOULD Sir Philip Rutnam be sacked as permanent secretary at the home office, the most senior civil servant in the department, for allegedly frustrating Priti Patel and previous home secretaries?

To be sure, he seems to have a problem with Priti, who is accused of “bullying” senior staff, sending them demanding emails in the middle of the night and swearing, “Why is everyone so ****ing useless?”

Priti apparently wants to get rid of Rutnam, whose supporters have been briefing against her.

If she comes out on top, it will be a reversal of the general drift in Yes Minister, which has just been voted “the greatest political comedy of all time” by members of parliament.

The 1980s TV series shows how the permanent secretary at the fictional department of administrative affairs, Sir Humphrey Appleby (played by Nigel Hawthorne), is invariably able to manipulate his minister, Jim Hacker (Paul Eddington).

The latest anti-Priti story appeared in the Sunday Times, which reported, “MI5 chiefs ‘do not trust’ Priti Patel with their secrets”, and that “officers in the security service have reduced the volume of intelligence they show to the home secretary and regularly ‘roll their eyes’ at her interventions in meetings”.

But another side to the row presents a less flattering picture of Rutnam. Amber Rudd, the home secretary who had to resign because of the Windrush scandal, accuses Rutnam of making himself scarce at the critical moment.

The findings of an inquiry into the Windrush scandal, conducted by Wendy Williams, HM Inspector of Constabulary, to be published shortly, might make Rutnam’s position untenable.

The Sunday Times quotes from a leaked transcript, which has Rudd blaming Rutnam for the loss of her job: “I find his absence (during the Windrush scandal) inappropriate. He was absent through my final few weeks and days. I think a good permanent secretary would lean into a real difficulty like this rather than sit back from it.”

Asked if she had received Rutnam’s support, Rudd said: “No, not really.”

The Sunday Times said: “Patel’s team spoke to Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s chief aide, in December to raise their concerns about Rutnam. They accused him of spying on ministers, asking their private offices where they were spending their spare time before making remarks that showed he knew where they had been.

“One person present said Cummings acknowledged Rutnam’s behaviour was not conducive to the delivery of the Tory manifesto – and implied that he would be gone in due course.”

According to the Sunday Telegraph, the prime minister is planning a cull of three permanent secretaries, including Rutnam. The others on his “hit list” are Sir Simon McDonald and Sir Tom Scholar, Rutnam’s counterpart at the foreign office and the Treasury, respectively.

So did Rutnam overstep the mark?

The Sunday Telegraph says: “Sir Philip was accused of ‘obstructing’ and ‘undermining’ successive home secretaries.” The Daily Mail added that Rutnam “is reportedly hanging by a thread because of repeated clashes with Ms Patel”.

What will decide the issue is probably what Cummings thinks of Rutnam. If Sajid Javid had to resign because he wouldn’t get rid of his special advisers at the Treasury – they were fired anyway – Rutnam’s future doesn’t look too bright.