Ministerial Code

The Minister of State for Cabinet Office provided an overview of the situation, acknowledging the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam and the appointment of Shona Dunn as acting permanent secretary. He stated that the Home Secretary rejects the allegations against her and that the Prime Minister has full confidence in her.

The Leader of the Opposition pressed for an explanation regarding the Prime Minister's absence, emphasising the need for a thorough external investigation into the Home Secretary’s conduct. He highlighted the potential breach of court rulings and called for immediate action.

Asked if there would be a quick process to resolve the issue, expressing support for the Home Secretary's work in ensuring security and implementing a new immigration system.

Suggested that an independent investigation was necessary to establish whether there had been bullying within the Home Office, questioning why the Government refused such an approach. She also inquired about the Prime Minister’s whereabouts.

Asked for clarity on the number of allegations made against the Home Secretary and whether they would all be investigated as part of the inquiry, emphasising her desire for transparency in the process.

Agreed with the importance of Ministers implementing Government policy, suggesting that civil servants should carry out the will of the people.

Emphasised the importance of a robust and clear implementation of Government policies, highlighted the need for mutual respect between Ministers and civil servants to ensure effective delivery. Addressed concerns regarding the Windrush report, stating there is no evidence linking recent allegations to the delayed publication of the report. Defended the Home Secretary against accusations of bullying, maintaining her independence from political attacks and emphasising her strong record in office.

Asked about whether recent allegations made against the Home Secretary relate to the Windrush report's delayed publication. Expresses concern over potential further delays and loss of public trust.

Advised that civil servants should not be confused with Ministers and Secretaries of State in terms of their roles, endorsing the Home Secretary's work and supporting her position.

Critiqued recent events as threats to the independence of the civil service, calling for protections against ad hominem attacks that undermine the integrity of public servants.

Defended the Home Secretary's performance, contrasting her work with Labour party scandals involving bullying and antisemitism.

Questioned whether Philip Rutnam's statements were misleading or mistaken given the circumstances of his resignation.

Asked about plans to reform the civil service for greater accountability.

Pressed on the need for an immediate investigation into allegations of bullying and questioned whether a list exists that aims to replace senior civil servants for political reasons.

Suggested that current debates are distracting from important Home Office policies, such as fair immigration and increased police presence. Critiqued the establishment's alleged attempts to undermine these policies.

Warned against dismissing bullying allegations based on a Minister's charm, highlighting that bullying often manifests through alternating praise and humiliation.

Asked about steps to ensure civil servants do not block or divert directions given by Ministers in the context of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs.

Expressed concern that impartiality may be compromised if civil servants fear repercussions from providing advice. Asked how the Minister would guarantee their continued ability to perform as required.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned some press reports, but he never touched on the fact that the policies pursued by the Home Secretary were voted for overwhelmingly in December and are extremely popular. People voted for 20,000 extra police and a managed immigration system. Her real offence is that she has upset the Opposition and the establishment.

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The comments from some—some—on the Opposition Benches suggest they are very happy when attention is shifted away from our focus on delivering our manifesto commitments, but we will not be diverted from delivering on those manifesto commitments.

Is this not the honeymoon period for a new Government? In less than three months, the Government have lost a Chancellor and now the head of the Home Office. How does the Minister think things are going for the Government?

It is probably fair to say that different people enjoy different types of honeymoon.

Tell us about it.

No, please don’t.

A candidate for the deputy leadership of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), invites me to go further than I would want to at this moment, but I shall not.

On a more serious note, the vital thing that we all recognise is that all Governments face entirely understandable and legitimate media scrutiny, but the real test of any Government is not what may preoccupy commentary at any given moment, but the delivery of the people’s priorities, the keeping of manifesto pledges and making life better for the people of this country.

I was a civil servant at three Departments. On the day of the Brexit referendum result, I was told at the Foreign Office by multiple senior civil servants that it was the wrong decision and that the people had got it wrong. Is it not right that sometimes, sadly, Ministers do need to be robust with civil servants to make sure the people’s priorities are always delivered?

My hon. Friend is right. Of course, we will all have different opinions about the wisdom of particular policies as individual citizens, but as a Government we are united in delivering the manifesto on which we were elected.

The Home Secretary herself has admitted that her “actions fell below the high standards that are expected of a secretary of state” and “below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated.” What has changed since then? Given the Minister’s interest in the work of the Home Office, can he say who has replaced Shona Dunn as the second permanent secretary?

The hon. Gentleman refers to events in the past, but it is also fair to say that since then we have had a general election at which the public endorsed our clear manifesto commitments to an additional 20,000 police officers, a points-based immigration system and a tougher line on organised crime.

As a general point, recruitment for several permanent secretary posts is either ongoing or imminent. What role do the Government envisage Secretaries of State playing in that recruitment process?

There are well-laid-out procedures for the role of Secretaries of State in the appointment of permanent secretaries. We have a superb cadre of permanent secretaries and senior civil servants, who I know will maintain the very high standards that characterise the work of our civil service.

Is it Government policy to comply with the rulings of the courts?

You betcha.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has traditionally been referred to as robust and forceful exchanges is too often routinely referred to as bullying nowadays, and that while there is no place for bullying within Government, effective government does need robust exchanges?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us consider Ministers who were successful in the past. No one would accuse Denis Healey, for example, of having been a shrinking violet when it came to ensuring that effect was given to the policies of the Labour Government of the day.

May I ask the Minister what financial settlement was offered to Sir Philip Rutnam?

It would be wrong for me to go into those details, given that Sir Philip—who was, as I mentioned earlier, a distinguished public servant—has indicated that he may initiate legal proceedings. I would not want to say, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want me to say, anything that would prejudice the appropriate conduct of those proceedings.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not the place of civil servants to choose their Secretaries of State, and that any attempt to do so is wrong?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key—[Interruption.] I see no reason why, in a debate in which we are considering the importance of civility, people should attempt to criticise my hon. Friend for asking a fair and robust question.

Were any complaints received by Downing Street in respect of the conduct of the current Home Secretary when she was Secretary of State for International Development or when she was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, and if so, were they investigated?

The inquiry that is proceeding will look at all complaints that may have been made. I cannot say more than that.

A huge number of people in North Cornwall and around the country want the Government to deliver on the people’s priorities. Is it not therefore right for Ministers to be tough and robust with their talented civil servants and officers to ensure that they can deliver on those priorities?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital for Ministers to be energetic and determined in pursuit of the manifesto commitments on which the Government were elected.

As a former senior civil servant who served under various Ministers in both Labour and Conservative regimes, I find it hard to express how unprecedented the actions of Sir Philip Rutnam are. This is completely unheard of.

With respect to the hon. Lady, who was a very distinguished civil servant, I disagree. The first thing to say is that because Sir Philip Rutnam has made it clear that he wishes to pursue a particular legal route, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to provide a commentary on his remarks.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not be distracted by fielding stones thrown from the glass house of the Opposition Front Bench, but should concentrate on delivering the points-based immigration system? Will he assure me that that will still happen?

It absolutely will. The Minister for Security has been working with other ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that that vital reform to our immigration system proceeds apace.

Despite all the bluster from his Back Benchers, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the talk of manifesto pledges and implementation of policies is no excuse for a Secretary of State or Minister to behave how they want or to bully and intimidate people? Also, can he confirm that the Government are not beholden to Dominic Cummings’ plans to disrupt and dismantle the entire civil service?

Critiques the Labour party for bullying, defends Home Secretary's colleagues against allegations of leaking information.

Defends Government's commitment to manifestos, emphasises civility in public life. States there is no evidence the Home Secretary has acted in breach of court rulings against officials in her Department.

Points out a pattern involving female Home Secretaries being subject to vicious briefings, questions if there is a problem with men taking instructions from powerful women.

Agrees that everyone should treat colleagues with respect but criticises the Labour party for not dealing adequately with bullying within its ranks.

Supports Home Secretary in implementing policies, asks if there is an ongoing investigation into leaks from civil service about the Home Secretary.

Praises strong women and the importance of robust discussions between Ministers and officials without leaking information to media.

Emphasises that allegations must be investigated carefully, avoiding trials by media.

Stresses the need for competent civil servants to deliver policies effectively and asks about measures in place to hold them accountable.

Believes issue should not distract from delivering on manifesto promises, including a points-based immigration system and more police officers.

Recalls former Prime Minister's alleged behaviour towards officials to suggest that current Home Secretary should be treated with fairness.

Questions what reforms are being made to ensure civil servants are accountable and seen as such.

Critiques the Opposition for focusing on a public servant's resignation rather than issues like trade negotiations, coronavirus, flooding etc.

Asks if civil service is listening to general public priorities such as immigration control and law enforcement.

Expresses concern over the Home Secretary's handling of law and order policies, suggesting that a tougher stance could have prevented current issues.

Reiterates the Conservative Government's commitment to taking a tough line on law and order and implementing firm but fair migration policies.

Requests reassurance that the government will not emulate Labour’s approach in handling allegations of misconduct and antisemitism, which he deems ineffective and damaging.