Dominic Raab resigns as deputy prime minister and justice secretary in wake of bullying report – UK politics live

Key events

FDA civil servants' union calls Raab probe to be followed by general inquiry into ministerial bullying

The FDA, the union representing senior civil servants, has called for a general inquiry into the bullying of officials by ministers. In a statement Dave Penman, the FDA’s general secretary, said:

As Dominic Raab’s resignation letter makes clear, he was guilty of bullying civil servants and, therefore, had breached the ministerial code. His obviously reluctant tone and dismissal of the complaints says more about his conduct than any findings will. This resignation is not a vindication of the current system, it’s a damning indictment of the inadequacy of a process that relies solely on the prime minister of the day to enforce standards …

Seven things we've learned from Raab's resignation letter

There is quite a contrast between the overnight briefing on behalf of Dominic Raab (see 9.06am and 9.24am). That could be explained by his allies talking complete rubbish to journalists. But a much more likely explanation is that last night Raab thought he could stay in office, but that by this morning – presumably after direct, or indirect, contact with Rishi Sunak – he realised that if he did not resign, he was going to sacked.

This is not so much a resignation letter as a “resignation” letter. It reads as if it was written by someone pushed out.

Here are seven things we’ve learned from it.

1) Raab claims that his departure sets a “dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government” because it will make it too easy for ministers to be removed. This echoes what MPs like Jacob Rees-Mogg have said about civil servants being too “snowflakey”. Raab does not explicitly say that he was the victim of a politically motivated witchhunt, but these comments – and his complaint about a diplomat ignoring the wishes of cabinet – suggest that he does see himself in this light. He is implicitly casting himself as a victim.

2) He reveals that two of the complaints against him were upheld. But he says the inquiry has dismissed “all but two” of the complaints against him. Without having seen the full report, it is hard to know what the significance of this.

3) He reveals that the inquiry did not conclude that Raab intentionally bullied his staff. Summarsing its findings, he says:

Mr Tolley concluded that I had not once, in four and a half years, sworn or shouted at anyone, let alone thrown anything or otherwise physically intimidated anyone, nor intentionally sought to belittle anyone.

But in the past the No 10 ethics adviser has taken the view that bullying does not have to be intentional to be in breach of the ministerial code. This is what the Priti Patel inquiry concluded. Boris Johnson essentially ignored that report, and allowed Patel to remain in office as home secretary. Today’s outcome suggests Sunak was not willing to follow that precedent

4) But Raab claims this definition of bullying means that is now too easy for a minister to be forced out. He says:

In setting the threshold for bullying so low, this inquiry has set a dangerous precedent. It will encourage spurious complaints against Ministers, and have a chilling effect on those driving changen on behalf of your government – and ultimately the British people.

You could dismiss this as Raab arguing that the rules are now unfair to bullies.

5) He is not apologetic. The letter includes a line saying:

I am genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt, as a result of the pace, standards and challenge that I brought to the Ministry of Justice.

This does not go beyond what he has already said. Reading the rull report has not made him feel any more contrite. (If anything, the opposite – there is a tone of resentment and anger running through the whole letter.)

6) Raab thinks the inquiry process was unfair, because of the extent of leaking against him.

7) He says he is resigning because he promised to resign if the inquiry “made any finding of bullying whatsoever”. This can be read a testament to the journalists who pressed Raab on this point in interviews while the inquiry was going on. (Sky’s Sophy Ridge was one, but others asked about this too.) Ministers normally dodge questions like this, saying they are hypothetical, but Raab was pushing into making a firm commitment, and that seems to have been a factor in his resignation.

Dominic Raab’s resignation letter has been dismissed as a “non-apology” by Paul Nowak, the general secretary of the TUC.

Lib Dems says Raab should resign as MP

The Liberal Democrats say Dominic Raab should now resign as an MP. This is from Daisy Cooper, the party’s deputy leader.

Dominic Raab has shown he is not only unfit to serve as a minister, but is totally unfit to represent his constituents in parliament. He should resign as an MP and trigger a byelection so the people of Esher and Walton can finally have the MP they deserve.

Voters across Surrey and the blue w are fed up with this endless Conservative chaos and MPs who take their communities for granted. At the next election in Esher and Walton, it will be a two horse race between more Conservative party chaos or a hardworking Liberal Democrat MP who will listen and stand up for local people.

Esher and Walton, Raab’s constituency, is now one of the Lib Dems’ main target seats.

But there is almost no chance of Raab resigning. And he won’t be forced out by a recall petition because that can only happen as a response to inquiries into parliamentary conduct. Raab is resigning because of an inquiry into what he did as a minister.

This is from Ellie Reeves, a shadow justice minister, on Dominic Raab’s resignation letter.

Full text of Dominic Raab's resignation letter

Here is the full text of Dominic Raab’s resignation letter.

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to resign from your government, following receipt of the report arising from the inquiry conducted by Adam Tolley KC. I called for the inquiry and undertook to resign, if it made any finding of bullying whatsoever. I believe it is important to keep my word.

It has been a privilege to serve you as Deputy Prime Minister, Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work as a Minister in a range of roles and departments since 2015, and pay tribute to the many outstanding civil servants with whom I have worked.

Whilst I feel duty bound to accept the outcome of the inquiry, it dismissed all but two of the claims levelled against me. I also believe that its two adverse findings are flawed and set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government. First, Ministers must be able to exercise direct oversight with respect to senior officials over critical negotiations conducted on behalf of the British people, otherwise the democratic and constitutional principle of Ministerial responsibility will be lost. This was particularly true during my time as Foreign Secretary, in the context of the Brexit negotiations over Gibraltar, when a senior diplomat breached the mandate agreed by Cabinet.

Second, Ministers must be able to give direct critical feedback on briefings and submissions to senior officials, in order to set the standards and drive the reform the public expect of us. Of course, this must be done within reasonable bounds. Mr Tolley concluded that I had not once, in four and a half years, sworn or shouted at anyone, let alone thrown anything or otherwise physically intimidated anyone, nor intentionally sought to belittle anyone. I am genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt, as a result of the pace, standards and challenge that I brought to the Ministry of Justice. That is, however, what the public expect of Ministers working on their behalf

In setting the threshold for bullying so low, this inquiry has set a dangerous precedent. It will encourage spurious complaints against Ministers, and have a chilling effect on those driving changen on behalf of your government – and ultimately the British people.

Finally, I raised with you a number of improprieties that came to light during the course of this inquiry. They include the systematic leaking of skewed and fabricated claims to the media in breach of the rules of the inquiry and the Civil Service Code of Conduct, and the coercive removal by a senior official of dedicated Private Secretaries from my Ministry of Justice Private Office, in October of last year. I hope these will be independently reviewed.

I remain as supportive of you and this government, as when I first introduced you at your campaign leadership launch last July. You have proved a great Prime Minister in very challenging times, and you can count on my support from the backbenches.

Dominic Raab resigns

Dominic Raab has resigned.

Sunak right to delay decision on Raab bullying report, senior minister says

Rishi Sunak is right to delay the decision on the fate of Dominic Raab, Mark Harper, the transport secretary, has said. Kiran Stacey has the story.

This is from the Times’ Henry Zeffman on thinking in the Ministry of Justice, where Dominic Raab is currently justice secretary and officials complained about his conduct. (There were also complaints from people who had worked for Raab at the Foreign Office and at the Department for Exiting the European Union.)

That prompted these comments from Sky’s Sam Coates.

And this from Chris Smyth at the Times.

Some of the most combative quotes from the Dominic Raab camp are in the Daily Telegraph’s splash. In their story Ben Riley-Smith and Charles Hymas report:

Allies of Mr Raab said “he’ll fight to the death”, claiming that Mr Sunak’s delay in making a decision suggested there were “grey areas” and the report was not “cut and dried” ….

A source supportive of Mr Raab said: “He is definitely fighting it. We knew he was going to fight it. We know he is lawyered up so he will fight it to save his political skin.”

Both of these quotes are probably less helpful than intended.

If someone is accused of being bullying and aggressive, is it really helpful to suggest they are prepared to “fight to the death”?

And, as Hannah White, head of the Institute for Government points out, if Raab’s allies thinks being “lawyered up” will keep him in his job, then they don’t understand how the system actually works.

Dominic Raab situation a ‘farce’, says union, as Rishi Sunak delays bullying report response

Good morning. If Rishi Sunak was hoping that Dominic Raab would quit voluntarily after reading the Adam Tolley report into the allegations that he repeatedly bullied his officials, he will have been disappointed. As Aubrey Allegretti and Pippa Crerar report in our splash, Raab has read the report and concluded that he does not have to go. They report:

According to one Ministry of Justice source, Raab was battling to stay in post, believing the findings – which he has read – do not mean he should have to resign. By Thursday evening, however, he and Sunak had yet to hold any direct discussions.

Other papers have had the same briefing.

So Sunak has a choice; he can either sack Raab, or let him stay in government. There are variations on each option – dismissal could be tempered by a promise to bring Raab back; remaining in office could come with sanctions, such as an apology, or attending an anger management course. But the people who complained about Raab want him out, and so essentially the choice is binary.

Sacking Raab would make Sunak look firm and authoritative. But it would alarm Tory MPs who don’t want government personnel decisions decided by what they see as “snowflake” civil servants, and the media; it would revive questions as to what Raab was appointed in the first place; and it would be a harsh way to repay someone who was one of Sunak strongest supporters in the leadership contest last summer.

Letting Raab stay would avoid all these problems, do more for party unity, and signal to Tories Sunak’s determination not to cave into pressure from opponents in parliament, Whitehall and the media. But it would make Sunak look like Boris Johnson (who ignored a report saying Priti Patel was a bully), and it would leave Sunak’s promise when he became PM to lead a government of “integrity, professionalism and accountability” looking rather threadbare.

Mark Harper, the transport secretary, has been giving interviews this morning, but he has been unable to say exactly when Sunak will take a decision and the position is the same as it was last night; the PM is considering the matter carefully. Harper told the BBC:

I think actually that’s the fair thing to do both for the complainants, who made some serious complaints, but also for Dominic Raab. I think for both sides in this the prime minister should take the time.

But the FDA, the union that represents senior civil servants, has described the situation as a farce. The union has been supporting some of the officials who complained about Raab and Dave Penman, its general secretary, told BBC Breakfast that Sunak should have taken a decision already. He said:

We don’t need to redefine bullying, bullying is dealt with in workplaces up and down the country. There are demanding bosses and there are bullies, and everyone knows the difference.

We don’t really know why [Sunak] hasn’t been able to decide on the facts that were presented to him yesterday. It just reinforces the point of what a kind of farce this whole process is for those who raised complaints.

Whatever the reason for that is, a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs, to be honest.

The Commons is not sitting today, and we are expecting the news today to focus on Raab. But Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, is delivering a speech at 11am on primary health care. And Keir Starmer is on a visit in Yorkshire, where he will do a Q&A with health and care students.

If you want to contact me, do try the new “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. (It is not available on the app yet.) This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.