(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The very public hostilities between U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel and her most senior civil servant, Philip Rutnam, may feel like the kind of thing of interest mainly to scorekeepers (or score settlers) inside the Westminster bubble. And yet, even with everything else happening in British politics — from Coronavirus containment to trade negotiations, the first post-Brexit budget and a surprise marriage and impending baby for Prime Minister Boris Johnson — the attention is justified.
How Johnson handles Rutnam’s accusations against Patel will show just how far his government is willing to go in disrupting deeply established structures within the civil service, a particular goal of Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings, who feels Britain’s highly regarded mandarins (the British term for top civil servants) are an obstacle to post-Brexit reforms. Of equal importance is whether the Johnson government can afford to remove its bureaucratic enemies without seriously gumming up the machinery of government. The Home Office is in charge of immigration, which is central to the U.K.’s post-Brexit planning as it breaks with the European Union’s free movement rules.
Rutnam walked out on a 33-year public service career Saturday, which in itself is unusual. His public statement accusing Patel of bullying, lying and briefing against him to the media made it front-page news. He disclosed an attempt by the government to pay him off to go quietly, and announced that he’s suing the ministry for constructive dismissal.
Some might say this was bound to happen. The Home Office is seen by many as the most difficult brief in government, a graveyard of ambitious ministers. Add Patel (one of the Conservative Party’s most polarizing politicians), Cummings’s revolutionizing agenda and a breakneck timetable to the mix — and boom.
A longtime Euroskeptic and early Brexit adopter, the mention of Patel’s name sends many Remainers into a froth. The idea of a daughter of Indian immigrants as the chief spokeswoman for a hard line on immigration offends progressives.
Patel was forced out of government as the U.K.’s international development secretary under Theresa May after a series of unauthorized meetings with 14 senior Israeli officials. Her portfolio at the time included aid to the Palestinian Authority and organizations critical of Israel. So it says something about his perception of her loyalty and core beliefs that Johnson elevated her to one of the four highest offices of state. And one that’s important to his new cohort of ex-Labour voters in the north of England, for whom immigration and law and order are priorities.
Her mission (some would say impossible) is essentially to rip up the Home Office playbook and rewrite it — from the immigration system and beefed up border controls to delivering Johnson’s promise to add 20,000 new police officers. Each of these policy areas is operationally complex; taken together, they will pose a major strain on civil servant bosses like Rutnam and the tens of thousands of staff he managed. Usually, ministers would be leaning on the deep institutional and operational knowledge of officials like Rutnam to translate briefs into policies. Johnson and Cummings don’t seem to want to work like that.
Defending Patel, as Johnson did vehemently on Sunday, has become a proxy for his government’s post-Brexit agenda and plans for broader civil service reform. Just as Brexiters saw British judges and Parliament as part of an ossified establishment standing in the way of the “people’s will,” so Patel’s backers see Rutnam as emblematic of a moribund senior cadre of Whitehall professional, hostile to Brexit, who will frustrate plans to reshape government now that Britain is leaving the EU.
“This is a fight the government has to win, otherwise all her colleagues will be dead in the water,” Iain Duncan Smith, a hardline Tory Brexiter, said. “There is still a group of civil servants who don’t believe in Brexit.”
Things could get messy, however. Conservative voters may give Johnson and Patel the benefit of the doubt, but her influence within her own department has been weakened. According to reports, two of her closest advisers have been replaced by ones chosen by Downing Street. This is precisely the kind of meddling that prompted Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid to resign last month, and doesn’t exactly smack of confidence from the prime minister’s office. The interference has rattled the civil service trade union , which wants Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill, head of the civil service, to launch an inquiry led by an external lawyer into Patel's behavior. Johnson has launched an internal probe.
And however much Johnson would like to stand by Patel, revelations made during the court case could become embarrassing. Rutnam is alleging he was forced out of his job against his will because of his employer’s conduct. His tribunal will be heard in public unless the government gets an exemption. The burden of proof rests with Rutnam. But he only has to win a “balance of probabilities” case — where his evidence outweighs the Home Office’s defense.
The court could also find for the Home Office but criticize it in the judgment. Unless Patel gets a clear win, there will be fallout.
However much Cummings might like to do it, Johnson cannot simply replace the civil service. He needs it to implement policies that affect millions of people; it can’t be done by a few dozen bright sparks in Downing Street. That’s why it’s reckless to see this as a fight between opposing teams — the bureaucrats and politicians are meant to be on the same side. Johnson will have to resolve this locker-room brawl if he wants to rule effectively.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at jboxell@bloomberg.net
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Therese Raphael writes editorials on European politics and economics for Bloomberg Opinion. She was editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.
©2020 Bloomberg L.P.