Dominic Cummings’s father in law has written to The Times to argue that it is difficult to change organisational habits “without appearing to ‘bully’” amid the continuing fallout from bullying allegations faced by home secretary Priti Patel.
In a letter to the paper published today in response to the Patel reports, Sir Humphry Wakefield, a baronet and antiques expert, said he had “worked in many long-established offices around the world” where “almost invariably, relaxed disciplines have become the norm” that he said were difficult to alter.
“I have found it near impossible to change old habits without appearing to ‘bully’,” he said. “Throwing chilling water on attempted inspiration is a special skill of department leaders whose relaxed life is under threat.”
RELATED CONTENT
Last week it was reported that Patel had tried to have Home Office permanent secretary Sir Philip Rutnam removed over “fundamental disagreements” between the two. An unnamed source told The Times that Patel was a rude and “extraordinary person to work for”, adding: “No one can see how this is going to be resolved. It is going to blow up sooner or later".
On Sunday it was briefed that No.10 Downing Street had a “hit list” of permanent secretaries it wanted to replace, which included Treasury perm sec Sir Tom Scholar and Foreign Office chief Sir Simon McDonald as well as Rutnam.
Wakefield, who is also an expert on architecture and who restored Chillingham Castle in Northumberland where he lives, is the father of journalist Mary Wakefield – the wife of Dominic Cummings, the prime minister's senior adviser.
He is one of a number of correspondents in the newspaper on the subject of Patel.
Sir Paul Lever, a former civil servant who served as chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee that oversees the work of the security service from 1994 to 1996, wrote that “the home secretary may or may not be difficult to work for but she is entitled to expect the unconditional loyalty of her staff”. It has been reported that MI5 officials had withheld information from the home secretary – a claim Home Office minister James Brokensire has since called "false".
Lever said that “for Home Office officials to brief against her in the way that they seem to have done is snide and unworthy”.
“Particularly offensive is the claim, now officially denied, that sensitive material was withheld from her because she was thought to be in some (unspecified) way untrustworthy. It is the duty of the security services to ensure that relevant intelligence, properly assessed, is brought to ministers’ attention. To claim that they failed to do so is not only implausible: it is to impugn their professionalism.”
Another letter from former home secretary Jack Straw said that crises “arrive from the most unexpected quarters” but that there was “no point in blaming officials for this” as it is “inherent in the business of the Home Office”.
He added: “Things rarely go according to plan. Those home secretaries who see conspiracies against them everywhere rarely survive long. My advice to Priti Patel and her advisers is to work with her officials, not against them. She will need them when a real crisis hits her.”
Lord Wilson of Dinton, cabinet secretary from 1998 to 2002, also weighed in. He wrote: “If reports of troubled relationships at the Home Office are correct, it is not the first time such problems have arisen and it will not be the last.”
He added: “It is a stressful place. The one thing that is clear is that they are best sorted out calmly in private. The rest of us are in no position to adjudicate.”