Politics is a rough and tumble profession where clashes between headstrong ministers and more cautious officials are not uncommon. But when claims surface of a politician’s behaviour verging on bullying, how fit are the current systems to deal with the strain and what compels civil servants to make allegations anonymously to journalists? These questions are circulating through the roughly two dozen government departments around Whitehall.
After multiple media reports critical of Dominic Raab’s behaviour, an independent investigation was launched into his behaviour when two formal complaints were made. Raab said he was confident he had always behaved professionally and denied bullying.
While there has been increasing scrutiny of MPs’ behaviour towards their parliamentary staff, there has been much less attention paid to the way concerns raised by civil servants are taken care of.
The disparity was picked up on recently by the standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, who pointed out there were “different processes” for the two sets of staff even if they serve the same boss.
There is a belief among many civil servants – particularly those working in private offices – that adapting themselves to suit their minister’s needs is part of the job. Long-standing observers of Whitehall believe a certain amount of “shock absorbing” is expected of officials, and that it is not uncommon for people to switch roles if they do not “gel” with their minister.
Indeed, they say that some take professional pride in not feeling forced to be dislodged by those who may not be in their political post for long.
Occasional frustrated outbursts can sometimes be amicably glossed over without the need for any more than an apology, as in most businesses. But if problems persist, what happens then? When does a “serious expression of concern” (as the Guardian revealed was raised about Raab) become a “formal complaint”? And does making a formal complaint risk ruining your career? Here the murky world of Whitehall’s elasticity with behaviour complaints can become compromised.
“Civil servants feeling there is no other outlet but for them to leak things anonymously is a consequence of the inadequate complaints procedures,” says Alex Thomas, a programme director at the Institute for Government.
Thomas says a lack of faith in the current complaints system would be likely to cause a “corrosive relationship” between ministers and officials, who should be able to trust each other completely and observe the upmost discretion.
If a minister is deemed to be exhibiting potentially problematic behaviour, they can be spoken to by the principal private secretary – or if serious enough, the department’s permanent secretary.
But even if no resolution is forthcoming, there can be a reluctance for the alleged victim to deepen the rift by standing by their complaint and asking for it to be escalated to a more serious footing.
“Being liked and able to manoeuvre ministers is crucial to progress in central Whitehall departments,” one civil servant said. “So if you aren’t, or even go further to make a complaint, you’ll find yourself in the sticks next.”
Another said there was “no such thing as a cloak of anonymity” so officials felt that raising a grievance could haunt them for years. They claimed that since Boris Johnson overrode a report that found his home secretary, Priti Patel, had bullied staff, “everyone accepted it would be fruitless to complain”.
Civil servants do talk – and some senior officials stress that they would communicate any good reason for concern to colleagues in another department if the minister were promoted or moved sideways. But without a formal complaint, the ability to track concerns about a minister’s behaviour across departments can prove difficult.
It is true, as well, that behaviour taken by one person to be unacceptable will be seen by others as part and parcel of working for an efficient, albeit demanding minister.
But a source insisted: “A lot of people in the civil service worry that the bullying stories make it sound like everyone has a victim mentality, when that couldn’t be further from the case. You can accept it’s a contact sport, while still expecting a level of professionalism and politeness that you’d see in any other environment.”
Given the Cabinet Office would be likely to pick up any formal complaint, some are sceptical it would be sufficiently discreet, given how closely aligned the department is with the prime minister’s office.
The “excessive reliance on informal procedures”, as Thomas put it, makes the absence of an ethics adviser even more notable. Although Lord Geidt quit the role on 15 June, the process to replace him has only recently got under way – and there are no assurances from Downing Street about how quickly a new adviser will be in place.
Thomas stressed the need for a speedy appointment to ensure ministers “know there are consequences” for bad behaviour and civil servants have confidence complaints will be “taken seriously”.
With beefed-up powers to initiate their own inquiries without the prime minister’s authorisation, more resources and the ability to freely publish their findings, Thomas believes a new adviser would “strengthen that ethical oversight”.
