Being appointed home secretary can prove a poisoned chalice

Trouble appears to come with the job of leading the Home Office, argues Sean O'Grady

There is a case for the defence of home secretary Priti Patel, though rarely heard (PA)

Given its radical nature, and the ethically-based criticism it has received from the likes of the archbishop of Canterbury, it’s not surprising that the government’s Rwanda plan for asylum seekers has encountered resistance among civil servants charged with trying to make it work.

Home Office staff have made clear they feel “nothing but the deepest shame” – among a number of similar messages. We already knew that senior civil servants who advised against the scheme on the grounds of practicality and cost (rather than morality) were told by the home secretary, Priti Patel, that it was going ahead whether they liked it nor not. They then requested she make a written direction to them to that effect, an unusual move designed to protect civil servants from having to take personal responsibility for potentially unlawful or problematic policies.

It is not an ideal situation, and reflects a difficult relationship between Ms Patel and those who try to serve her. Not so long ago her former permanent secretary, Sir Philip Rutnam had reached a settlement of £340,000, having alleged what he described as a “vicious and orchestrated campaign” against him for challenging the alleged mistreatment of civil servants. Ms Patel has consistently rejected Rutnam’s claims.