Introduction
I could not resist the temptation. The events that led ultimately to Dominic Raab's resignation were to be analysed by a KC and the report made public. No need to rely on media reporting and comment, partial or otherwise.
'Investigation Report to the Prime Minister' by Adam Tolley KC was published on 20th April 2023, and was suitably dry and dense, prompting many readers to turn off after the first few pages and find something more stimulating for a gossip gorge on a politician.
The dryness was exacerbated by Tolley's concern for confidentiality, requiring no detail to be disclosed that could identify individual Civil Servants beyond those agreeing to be named. In fact one had to read some of Tolley's analysis alongside media gloss in order to reveal the red meat.
And also, to enable any reflections of worth it is necessary to do some surmising of Raab's character, taken from his behaviours, a realm into which Tolley quite properly did not venture. The answer is more nuanced than would suit those who want to go either for the jugular or for total exculpation.
Throughout the Report, creating some strange sense of detachment, the man is referred to by the overarching title he held before resignation, Deputy Prime Minister, shortened to DPM. Perhaps depersonalising the reference enhanced the formality and made the report's author feel more comfortable. I will sticking to calling Raab Raab.
The result of the Report is a picture of a driven Minister frustrated at not being able to work his role in the way he wanted in three Departments of State, and how he behaved towards Civil Servants as a result. The three Departments were:
1. Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) - now defunct
2. Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office (FCDO)
3. Ministry of Justice (MoJ).
Required Standards of Behaviour
Before looking at the complaints I will pick key out passages from Tolley's review of the terms under which Ministers and Civil Servants work.
Ministers
The requirements are driven by what was in 1997 called 'Ministerial Code: a code of conduct and guidance on procedures for Ministers', and have evolved since. I will take the liberty of jumping to the 2018 version, where then Prime Minister Theresa May wrote in the Code's introduction:
'We need to establish a new culture of respect at the centre of our public life: one in which everyone can feel confident that they are working in a safe and secure environment'
The 2018 Code also contained the following: '...Ministers should be professional in their working relationships with the Civil Service and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect'.
The 2018 Code was re-issued in 2019 under Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. Part of Johnson's foreword reads:
' - we must uphold the highest standards of propriety - and this code sets out how we must do so.
There must no bullying or harassment.'
Civil Servants
As Tolley points out, Civil Servants are employees of the relevant Government departments, and their contract of employment has incorporated in it the Civil Service Code, a statutory document. The core values within this Code include objectivity (basing advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence) and impartiality (acting solely according the merits of the case and serving equally well governments of different political persuasions).
The Code further requires Civil Servants not to ignore inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when providing advice and not to frustrate the implementation of policies once decisions are made.
Pretty evidently these duties are relevant to Raab's perception of how the Civil Service dealt with him as he tried to achieve his policy objectives.
The Issues
The Report runs to 48 pages. If I were to track the discussion on all issues and outcomes then I would be writing too much for the purposes of this commentary. So I am going to focus on the complaints that were upheld, but will also pick out some factors considered in Tolley's analysis. Trying to judge the meaning of relevant words is at the core of understanding Raab's conduct.
Tolley upheld two complaints against Raab:
FCDO complaint
Tolley's explanation of the background was limited to the statement that it concerned the interactions between Raab and Civil Servants.There was no more detail in the Report, but information came out suggesting that Raab felt that a senior diplomat had exceeded his authority in Brexit negotiations over Gibraltar
Tolley's finding was that Raab had acted in a way that was intimidating, in the sense of being unreasonably and persistently aggressive in the context of a workplace meeting, that involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates, and that Raab introduced a punitive element to his criticism of a Civil Servant's behaviour.
There was a further finding that Raab acted in a way that could reasonably be understood as suggesting that Civil Servants involved were acting in breach of the Civil Service Code - this was effectively implying that they had broken their terms of employment - see above.
MoJ Complaints
Tolley upheld two out of the seven falling into this category. The thrust, covered in the Report, concerned Raab's perception of 'cultural resistance' towards his policies, including his plans for parole reform and for a British Bill of Rights to replace the European Convention on Human Rights.
Consolidating Tolley's words, the central finding was that Raab delivered critical feedback that was intimidating (meaning going further than was necessary) and insulting (in the sense of unconstructive and coming across as personal to the individual on the receiving end). This behaviour appears to have emanated from Raab perceiving cultural resistance to his plans as a form of obstructiveness.
Factors to consider
'bully'. This is a good place at which to start, given how in the perception by some of Raab, the word seems magnetically attracted towards him. Helpfully, as covered in the Report, 'bullying' was judicially considered in 2021 when the FDA applied for judicial review over the approach by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson relating to a complaint over the conduct of then Home Secretary Priti Patel.The Court's view in that case was that bullying can be characterised as:
1. Offensive, intimidating or insulting behaviour, or
2. Abuse or misuse of power in ways that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.
The Court went on to determine that conduct under limb one of the definition could occur whether or not the perpetrator is aware or intends the behaviour to fall into this category.
Tolley also valued the findings of Sir Alex Allen as Independent Adviser investigating the conduct of Priti Patel as Home Secretary. Allen pointed out that the Civil Service accepts that reasonable and constructive criticism of a worker's performance will not amount to bullying. and that for the behaviour to become bullying it must be intimidating or insulting conduct that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened. less respected or put down. Later, Tolley suggests a constructive comment as one that a piece of work can be improved by taking a certain step (my italics) - see below.
Critically Tolley decided that Raab's conduct should be assessed against an objective standard, that is not only what he knew, but also what he ought to have known, about his conduct.
On Raab's side, there were submissions by him that Tolley considered in coming to his decisions, notably that bullying should not be taken to include conduct that was direct, demanding, challenging, rigorous or questioning, particularly where the recipient was a 'senior person in a high-stakes environment'.
It is also important to note that Tolley had no reservations on Raab's intellect, describing him as a person who is highly intelligent, pays close attention to detail, and seeks to make decisions based on evidence. On the other hand, Tolley notes Raab's own admission that his style is inquisitorial, direct, impatient and fastidious.
Here are some further conclusions by Tolley on Raab's approach:
- Raab was genuinely frustrated over Civil Servants' quality of work and speed of production of work, and further over the extent to which work done by Civil Servants implemented his policy decisions
- If one of his questions was answered in what he did not consider to be a direct and straightforward way, he would likely interrupt
- Once Raab had made a policy decision, it should not be subsequently revisited by Civil Servants (he described the unwelcome approach as 'relitigating his steers' - once a lawyer...). Tolley did suggest that this approach might be considered 'absolutist' where new or additional circumstances arose after Raab had made one of his decisions.
- There was no evidence of Raab holding adverse views on an individual from one meeting to another, but some officials not used to his approach might reasonably anticipate that criticism on one occasion would lead to criticism on a subsequent occasion.
- On a couple of well-publicised factors, there was no criticism of how Raab used the 'hand out' function to stop someone from speaking, and no persuasive evidence of Raab shouting or swearing at individuals. Also there was no evidence of Raab losing control in meetings.
A last area, and again well-commented on and in some quarters seized upon by politicians, was resilience of Civil Servants. Tolley states that in his discussions with Raab, Raab did not suggest that Civil Servants' behaviour derived from a so-called 'snowflake' quality, but he did expect a certain degree of resilience from them.
Tolley did not detect any material lack of resilience from the complainants, and he went on to summarise the views of individuals he had interviewed:
- Ministers are entitled to have high standards and to make constructive criticism of work
- Civil Servants must adapt to Ministers' working preferences in each of the relevant Departments, and that is what they strove to achieve
- The individual complainants went to considerable lengths to respond to Raab's working preferences
- Raab did acknowledge and appreciate work when he saw considerable achievements.
Analysis
We can start with the legitimate expectations of Civil Servants, noted above in the Civil Service Code and shorthanded to duties of objectivity and impartiality. Cultural resistance, as perceived by Raab, would go against these requirements. The cultural resistance phrase is a convenient euphemism, and I will suggest that Raab was thinking anti-Conservative and anti-Brexit, and more crudely perhaps the Civil Service as part of a woke, liberal blob, antipathetic to a democratically elected Government's agenda. Thus the frustration, and thus some explanation for Raab's behaviour.
For this, we have in one corner Raab: direct; demanding; challenging; rigorous; questioning; inquisitorial; direct; impatient; fastidious (words as above), and in the other corner we have Civil Servants. The latter must implement Ministers' decisions, but this cannot mean acting as supine functionaries; if they are bound (Civil Service Code) to offer advice based on rigorous analysis of the evidence, then they must have a duty to challenge a Minister's decision if they do not consider that the decision can be successfully implemented. Writing in The New European, and admittedly showing his colours, Matthew d'Ancona describes the potential discord thus:
'The relationship between ministers and officials is where the rubber of politics and boosterism meets the road of reality and deliverable policy. Which is at the heart of the matter.'
From here I start to go off piste. The three issues that emerged on complaints upheld were Brexit, parole reform and a British Bill of Rights. As the last one is effectively a sequitur of the first - independent UK frees itself from the clutches of the European Court of Human Rights (albeit the ECHR is not an EU institution) - it seems fair to use Brexit as one of the catalysts leading to Raab's frustration and behaviour.
The Conservatives got Brexit over the line, 52% to 48%. Then to implement - not so easy when the driver was political ideology untrammelled by advance assessment of practicalities. For me implementation was always going to be fragile, and no shock when uber Brexiteer Raab brought his personality to the effort. Ideology v practicality, a recipe for conflict.
But what about the behaviour traits of Raab that are surely positive: attention to detail, in the past expressed for Ministers as having a grip on the brief; direct, challenging and inquisitorial, dealing with intellectually gifted Civil Servants who ought to match him for rigour and to be able to defend their advice; and impatient, to generate results in order to have a chance of re-election?
Put that way, perhaps one could have sympathy with Raab's 'low bar' dig after resignation. I suspect he had, and still has, the self-image of a driven leader taking no prisoners in his quest to achieve objectives. No lack of amour propre. Surely a foundation for greater things in the future?
Which only leaves his personality, and all of us are equally wise in assessing this, short of the man being subjected to a revival of In the Psychiatrist's Chair. No evidence of shouting does not astound me - I see a character boiling inside but enforcing a rigid show of calm, though with the words coming out in a menacing, passive-aggressive tone, enough to intimidate a recipient. Add to that the power (at the Prime Minister's pleasure) wielded by the Minister, and freedom from the employer's duty of care. Citing black belt karate and Barry's Boot Camp feels cheap, but this is man who needs some full-on physical engagement in order to evacuate his inner aggression.
Constructive criticism. Anyone with a GCSE in performance feedback knows that this means pointing out where a person's work on a task is not of the required standard and then being clear on what is the standard and what needs to be done to achieve it. Raab's criticisms of Civil Servants on complaints upheld come across as unconstructive, and it is only a short hop, skip and jump to the criticisms being perceived as personal attacks. Now our man in the Ministerial hot seat can contend that his challenging of standards was dead right, especially when directed to those in senior positions: if you can't stand the heat get out of the Service/milquetoast mini-blobs etc, and Daily Mail/Express and GB News folk would lap this up enthusiastically. Here we have a fair subject to put into a discussion of Raab's personality - maybe he does have a testosterone-nourished self-image of the tough, outwardly calm but terrifying to work for person - treat'em mean and they'll perform. Maybe underneath there is insecurity. All speculation, of course.
Also 'known or ought to have known': the phrase is a refrain in my head; the test introducing an objective standard of appropriate behaviour. Now if Raab truly lacks self-awareness and empathy then he could honestly say that he had no idea of the impact of his behaviour on Civil Servants with whom he dealt. Whatever the truth of that, he did as Tolley notes (and I have not mentioned this previously) receive warnings about his behaviour, first from Permanent Secretary Sir Philip Barton when Raab was at the FCDO, and then from Permanent Secretary Antonia Romeo when he was at the MoJ. There does not appear to be any evidence of a change of behaviour as a result of these interventions, although it has been reported that Raab's style improved once Tolley's investigation had started. Perhaps the penny had dropped, and Raab had finally appreciated that his style was not getting him the results he wanted.
Conclusion
My take is that the behaviour acceptability dial in organisational culture has shifted.
Let's go back to those extracts from the evolving Ministerial Code. We can pass quickly over Boris Johnson's words: that statement of 'uphold highest standards of propriety' feels hollow coming from Johnson B, and reads like a bit of flim flam devoid of belief.
Better to focus on Theresa May's words: 'culture of respect'; Ministers treating those they encountered 'with consideration and respect'; those working in public life to ' feel confident that they are working in a safe and secure environment'.
I am assuming that in contrast to Boris Johnson Mrs May believed in what she wrote. You can see that if you want to spin this from a rough at the top, suck it up, perspective, the phrases ring as a snowflake's charter. But my reckoning is that this positioning is firmly out of touch. Ask the average worker today if they would like to work in a culture of respect, work in a safe and secure environment, and be treated with consideration and respect by their employer, and you'll get your answer. Why should Government Ministers expect a different standard from the standard for employers?
Tolley found no evidence of Raab being an inherently vindictive person. But his personality and style rubbed up badly against those whom he had to take with him in implementing his policies. Fail in that relationship and you fail in progressing towards achieving your objectives. Fail in progressing quickly enough towards achieving your objectives and before you know it your credibility has gone. That's it.
.........
The author is a writer, speaker, historian, occasional tour guide, and former Managing Partner of a City law firm.