Thread by @cath_haddon

This takes the Ministerial Code investigation to a new level.

Coming at moment Patel report is published

"having considered Sir Alex’s advice and weighing up all the factors, the Prime Minister’s judgement is that the Ministerial Code was not breached"

gov.uk/government/new…

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1329750514179985413

Allan's conclusion is different from PM

Allan defines bullying as 'intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down'

"Instances of the behaviour reported to the Cabinet Office would meet such a definition"

The report also criticises the Home Office for some of the failing relationship between Home Sec and dept. Does not ascribe blame to individuals, but must be seen in context of Rutnam resignation and ongoing employment case there.

But, which will also prove hugely controversial, the report also says is sympathetic to Patel in terms of the fact that she knew her behaviour.

This is the origin of the 'unintentional' bullying phrase.

This speaks to wider issue also seen in Parliament and bullying case - whether staff feel able to bring grievances when there are unequal power relationships. How easy is it to tell senior person what their behaviour amounts to if you fear your job may be affected?

There are many wider qs from this case about failings of ministerial code.

- Does it protect civil servants from ministerial behaviour, no matter how explicit the code is?
- Are ministerial code investigations fair process to all involved?
- How should future cases be handled?

But more than the just the case and the findings, the delay to publication may have fatally undermined the code, and apparently the job of the independent investigator (will wait to see what Allan says, if anything).

The issue of whether Patel should resign is for PM.

But saying it is not a breach when your investigator says it is undermines the probe and the Code itself.

But the bigger question is whether an investigation into bullying by ministers itself becomes politicised both in terms of such a lengthy delay and, if reports correct, trying to get report changed. That is hugely damaging to trust

The whole affair of this Inquiry undermines arguments for keeping the Code as a document where PM is both judge and jury.

Publishing the code in 1992 was supposed to be about trust.
The role of Independent investigator was supposed to be about trust.

Time for new model?

Allan:
“I recognise that it is for the Prime Minister to make a judgement on whether actions by a Minister amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code. But I feel that it is right that I should now resign from my position as the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on the Code.”