Civil service union the FDA has urged new prime minister Andy Burnham to reform the process for investigating bullying and harassment complaints made by departmental officials about ministers.
In a letter to Burnham, FDA general secretary Dave Penman called for the PM to go further than his predecessors and “introduce a fully independent process for investigating and determining on the facts of such allegations”.
Penman said the request was not designed to stifle the expectations of “robust, demanding ministers”. He said civil servants appreciated clear and decisive leadership. Instead, he said the fully independent process sought by the union aims to tackle the systematic bullying of dedicated civil servants who cannot publicly defend themselves.
In 2021, the FDA took the government to the High Court after then-PM Boris Johnson ruled that home secretary Priti Patel had not bullied her staff – flying in the face of evidence from his adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Alex Allan.
Although the High Court ruled that Johnson had not “misinterpreted” the ministerial code in choosing to back Patel despite Allan’s findings, the FDA said its challenge had set down important legal markers.
Allan’s investigation was sparked by the resignation of Home Office permanent secretary Sir Philip Rutnam just a few months into Johnson’s term of office and Patel’s installaton as secretary of state. Rutnam said Patel had shouted and sworn at staff and launched a “vicious and orchestrated” briefing campaign against him.
Rutnam launched a constructive dismissal case against the Home Office. The department reached a compensation deal with him at a cost in the region of £370,000 before the former perm sec’s employment tribunal commenced.
Penman’s letter to Burnham said the current system for investigating and adjudicating on complaints about ministerial behaviour towards officials suffered from an “inherent conflict of interest”.
He said that while it was right for a PM to be able to consider the appropriate sanction for a minister found to have breached the ministerial code, determining matters of fact related to someone they have personally appointed, in a situation that could create political damage for the government, left No.10 “inherently conflicted”.
“Separating out a determination on fact – the outcome of the investigation – from the sanction that will apply if appropriate, would address the conflict in the current process,” he said. “It would give civil servants the confidence they need that, if they take the brave and difficult step of raising a complaint, it will be decided solely on the evidence.”
Penman concluded: “A fully transparent and independent process is not only what civil servants should expect in a modern workplace, but is also in the best interests of ministers, protects the prime minister from accusations of political bias and would be a visible demonstration of your commitment to doing politics differently.”
Civil Service World sought a response from No.10. It had not provided one at the time of publication.