BORIS Johnson’s former chief of staff is facing an attempt to block his peerage following claims that he bullied junior members of the team in Downing Street.
Dan Rosenfield was nominated by Johnson in his resignation honours list, along with Alister Jack and Nadine Dorries.
However, The Times reports that a group of staff who worked with him have said it would be “entirely inappropriate” for Rosenfield to receive a peerage because of his conduct.
They have contacted the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office, which bets candidates for the independent Lords Appointments Commission, to formally register concerns.
The claims have been denied by those close to Rosenfield.
READ MORE: Scotland loses out on £3bn due to Westminster failure on tax dodgers
Complaints accused him of presiding over an “overbearing” culture that allegedly contributed to the departure of a number of young female staff late last year.
The newspaper also reports that two sources said a “series” of junior staff had to be found other jobs because they found Rosenfield so difficult to work for.
One said he has displayed a “dismissive” attitude towards some female staff that they believed “crossed the line” into bullying.
“He had David Brent-style humour and made odd, sexist comments”, one said.
A woman who felt mistreated told the newspaper: “There was a lot of screaming, particularly at women officials.
“A number of times colleagues would say to me, ‘are you ok?’ after he had left the room.
“The problem is, the worst-treated are those who are more reluctant to make the complaint, because they don’t want to damage their careers.”
Another person claimed: “There was a well-known incident where a young woman didn’t get his sandwich exactly when he wanted it.
“He summoned her into the office and yelled at her, ‘when I want my sandwich, I want my f****ng sandwich’.
“For the junior civil servants who were very badly treated, there was no option other than to put up with it.”
However, the newspaper also reports that other staff who worked with Rosenfield in Downing Street described the allegations as “laughable”.
One said: “Dan was an exemplary chief of staff who brought order to No 10 with professionalism and respect.
“This is the latest weak attempt from a group of disgruntled former political aides to manufacture controversy over Boris Johnson’s honours list.
“It is so obviously political as to be laughable.”
Another added: “Dan was at all times highly professional and his leadership restored professionalism to the Downing Street team.
“That none of this was raised during his time as chief of staff shows this is just a malicious briefing exercise aimed at targeting allies of Boris Johnson. These allegations are totally spurious.”
READ MORE: An early Holyrood election should only be used as a nuclear option
It is understood the ethics team have had a number of complaints about Rosenfield. One source said they had been told that the team would make the appointments commission aware of them as part of the vetting process.
A Cabinet Office spokesman did not deny that representations had been received but added that no complaints had been made while Rosenfield was working for the prime minister.
A Government spokesperson said: "We are not aware of any complaints being submitted during Dan Rosenfield's time as chief of staff at No10."
It will ultimately be down to Rishi Sunak to either block or allow nominations on the honours list.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article