Tag Archives: dominic raab

I have spent this morning reading Adam Tolley KC’s report into the complaints about Dominic Raab’s behaviour. Of its 48 pages, the first half is devoted to the process and dealing with multiple criticisms of his methods from Dominic Raab. It’s always interesting that those accused of bullying behaviours often spend a lot of time picking holes in the investigations against them that could arguably have been spent reflecting on their own behaviour and its impact on others.

Tolley’s conclusions are being spun as though Raab has not been found to have done much wrong and that he had to deal with these civil servants who were not up for doing his bidding.  Raab makes much of the conclusion that he didn’t swear at people or throw anything at them as though overt aggression is the only way to intimidate people.

In addition to the two findings of fact that led to Raab’s resignation, Tolley criticises his Raab’s “black and white” approach:

The DPM tends to take a clear view of an issue, whatever it may comprise. This applies across the range of matters with which he deals, from policy decisions to the presentational format of papers. In the context of the investigation, this approach manifested itself in what I considered to be a somewhat absolutist approach in his response to certain points, such as whether a particular conversation had occurred, either at all or in a certain way. His responses were frequently put in ‘black or white’ terms, with no room for nuance even where nuance might reasonably be expected. I did not find this approach persuasive.

Tolley also makes the very valid point that even though Raab does not appear to have held grudges against individuals, it was understandable that they didn’t see it quite that way:

The DPM tends to ‘wipe the slate clean’ from one occasion to the next; he will neither expect to offer criticism nor necessarily offer it. What is, however, also apparent is that some officials, not used to the DPM’s approach, may reasonably anticipate that one occasion of criticism from the DPM will necessarily lead to another. The anticipation of criticism may well be
inhibiting to good performance.

The report paints a picture of someone with insufficient emotional intelligence or self awareness to be trusted with leading a department and enacting any transformational change.

Tolley goes out of his way to commend the civil servants’ sincerity and hard work.

I find that the complainants were in every case acting in good faith in raising concerns which they genuinely held. In some cases, their experience involved a significant adverse impact on their health. While I have not been able to reach any findings on whether such effects were in fact caused by the DPM’s conduct, I recognise and accept that the impacts communicated to me had genuinely been experienced.

And far from being the “snowflakes” that some would suggest, they are well aware of the high pressure environment and high quality of work expected.