RISHI Sunak has accepted Dominic Raab’s resignation claiming that there were “shortcomings” in the probe into bullying allegations made against the former deputy PM.
On Friday, Raab resigned from the UK Cabinet following the conclusion of the inquiry into his treatment of civil servants in a number of top government roles.
Sunak received the report from senior lawyer Adam Tolley KC’s investigation on Thursday and had been considering the findings since. He had been facing pressure to sack Raab, but the Tory MP resigned instead.
Full details of the report have now been published, with Raab’s style of working as a minister described as “inquisitorial, direct, impatient and fastidious”.
Raab criticised the inquiry in his resignation letter, claiming the threshold for bullying was set “so low” it would set a dangerous precedent, and later penned an article in the Telegraph where he described the process as a “Kafkaesque saga”.
In his letter in response to Raab’s resignation, Sunak said: “When formal complaints about your conduct in different ministerial posts were submitted last year, I appointed at your request an independent investigator to conduct a full investigation into the specific facts surrounding these complaints.
“Adam Tolley KC has now submitted his report and I have carefully considered its findings, as well as consulting the independent adviser on ministers’ interests.
“As you say, you had – rightly – undertaken to resign if the report made any finding of bullying whatsoever. You have kept your word.
“But it is clear that there have been shortcomings in the historic process that have negatively affected everyone involved. We should learn from this how to better handle such matters in future.”
Sunak also praised his ally’s record in Government, including his work as justice secretary and foreign secretary, and thanked him for his support during last year’s Tory leadership race.
“I will always be grateful for your steadfast personal support during last year’s Conservative Party leadership contest from the day you introduced me at the launch to the last day of the contest.
“The subsequent dedication, commitment and loyalty with which you have discharged your responsibilities as Deputy Prime Minister has been typical of your belief in public service.
“I look forward to receiving your support from the backbenches as you continue to passionately represent your constituents of Esher and Walton.”
A total of 44 pieces of written evidence and 66 interviews were taken into consideration by Tolley, the report said.
Raab was interviewed four times over the space of around two-and-a-half days and engaged “seriously and conscientiously in the process”, Tolley said.
He was found to have described the work of officials as “utterly useless” and “woeful” while he was justice secretary.
Tolley praised the Ministry of Justice complainants’ “courage” for coming forward with allegations that launched the inquiry.
Though he did not make any formal findings about Raab’s conduct in relation to these claims, Tolley did say Raab acted in an “intimidating” manner at meetings with policy officials.
He also made “unconstructive critical comments” about the quality of work they did.
“By way of example, he complained about the absence of what he referred to as ‘basic information’ or ‘the basics’, about ‘obstructiveness’ on the part of officials whom he perceived to be resistant to his policies, and described some work as ‘utterly useless’ and ‘woeful’,” Tolley wrote.
Raab's letter also appeared to suggest he felt he had done nothing wrong, claiming the threshold for bullying was set "so low" it would set a "dangerous precedent".
In an article in the Telegraph following his resignation, he added: “Ministers should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
“In reality, the Kafkaesque saga I endured was shorn of the safeguards most people enjoy.”
It comes as it was revealed Raab described many of the matters involved in the complaints as “surprisingly non-specific” and suggested there would be a risk of “unfairness” in making factual findings based on such allegations.
Tolley wrote: “The DPM’s written representations made a further point about the level of detail in the complaints and in the summaries provided to him, contending that many of the matters included were ‘surprisingly non-specific’.
“He argued that if I were to make factual findings based on non-specific allegations, there would be a risk of unfairness because there would not have been a sufficient opportunity to respond.”
