♪ ♪ narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... woman: architect. bee keeper. mentor. a raymond james financial advisor tailors advice to help you live your life. life well planned. george: actually, you don't need vision to do most things in le. it's exciting to be part of a team driving the technology forward. i think that's the most rewarding thing. people who know, know bdo.

narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. by judy and peter blum kovler foundation; pursuing solutions for america's neglected eds. and by contributions to this pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. announcer: and now, "bbc news". ♪ >> hello, this is the context. >> i resigned because i said i would. it sends a very dangerous precedent. >> the big question for the pre minister, why not sack him? >> dominic raab demanding his department work hard on

priorities, also he sets the bar high in terms of his threshold for resignation. ♪ cross-examination, 48 page report documents dominic raab's misuse of power. we dig deep into the deputy prime minister's response and the political fallout. stagnation, fifth season syndrome and staying afloat in the premier league. why does survival feel like an end in itself for so many of england's richest clubs? ryan reynolds fairytale could reach its climax tomorrow. and the return to the football league. and the changing global economy. are we splitting into competing blocks? what does that mean for trade, currency and politics? our panel joining us after 9:00 this evening.

the deputy prime minister's conduct amounted to misuse of power in a way that undermined the staff that worked for him and he must've been aware of this effect, because he'd been warned about his behavior by two permanent secretaries. mr. raab denied those conversations took place. we will pull out the key findings of the report mr. talley wro. let's start with his style of leadership, which sets the context for the interactions. his style is inquisitorial, direct, impatient and fastidious. in the course of his ministerial work, he often encounters frustrations in respect to the quality of work done. in response, dominic raab,

ministers he said, should be able to give feedback on briefings to senior officials in order to set standards and drive reform the borough public expects of us. some of these gestures were unacceptable. mr. talley concluded, said dominic raab, "i never intimidated anyone or intentionally intended to belittle someone." tolly believed the experience involved a significant adverse impact on their health. dominic raab said all complaints were stored up for over three months, some for over four years. "the claim should have been put

to me in writing, straightaway." " his behavior cannot be characterized as insulting. it was experienced as intimidating and excessively demanding." in the last few hours, dominic raab sat down with chris mason to give his side of the story. reporter: is this a stitch up? >> i would not describe it this way. i resigned today because i said i would if there was any adverse finding from this inquiry. i was to to my word. politicians should be. i think it sets a dangerous precedent. the report dismissed almost all the claims against me. only once in 4.5 years did i lose my temper. it also highlighted three instances where i've been

unintentionally abrasive, whether it was speaking directly to the senior civil servant who had breached a mandate very important in negotiation or the language i used was getting basic information. if the threshold for bullying is lowered that low, it's almost impossible for ministers to deliver for british people and will have a chilling effect on effective government, in which people pay the price. reporter: the report says you extended your hand out to another person, put to their face to stop them talking and you banged loudly on the table. you accept that as appropriate behavior in the workplace? >> they dismissed the other allegations you just mentioned. i haven't done any of those intimidating things. in relation to work, whether it

was parole reform or the other bit i was picked up on which was saying we having gotten basic information at a budgetary meeting, i think if we cannot ask direct questions, how do we deliver for the british people? reporter: do you accept your behavior has not been acceptable in certain instances? >> i'm sure i've made mistakes in 4.5 years. the question was about bullying. if the threshold for bullying is so lowered, that picking people upn bad work, straightening out a negotiation where preaching of a mandate has taken place, changing teams so we get the best out of negotiations and deliver on human rights reforms, if we cannot do those things, ultimately the public will pay the price. reporter: a fair-minded person reading this could conclude you

are a nightmare to work for. >> almost all the complaints against me were dismissed. what this doesn't give you, the senior officials, none of the junior complaints were upheld. i dealt with hundreds of civil servants, thousands of other people in the court service. you got a risk here of a very small minority of a very activist civil servant with a passive-aggressive culture in the civil service who don't like refos, whether brexit, parole reform, human rights reform, effectively trying to block government. reporter: activist civil servants. that's quite an allegation. you are saying there are people standing in the way of an elected government? >> i was told that by one cabinet secretary and 1 director of proprietary and ethics. reporter: did you see work he

thought was effectively activism? >> that wasn't the description i gave. i said if you got particularly activist civil servants who either because they are overly unionized or don't agree with what we are trying to pursue, we've seen that with brexit, human rights refor parole reform. there's a little cultural aversion. if they can block reforms or changes through a passive-aggressive approach, we can't deliver for the people. that's not the balance that should be struck. allowing ministers to be responsible. reporter: do some senior civil servants need a thicker skin? >> literally, three or four were upheld. in a budgetary meeting, it was

objected i said i don't have the basic information to make these decisions, at the risk of squandernsf un form, i said the department was being obstructive. even in the instance of the suggestion i had said work was woeful, which i deny, but even in that scenario, it is not intentional. if it is not personalized and right, there are subjective feelings by some, i'm afraid that makes it difficult to deliver. it is not what you would see in most walks of professional life. reporter: how do you think about your own behavior, how you are perceived? do you say sorry to them? >> if i inadvertently, adam tolly suggested i have been unintentionally abrasive. i want an empowered team.

the vast majority of civil servants were brilliant and fantastic and relished the challenge and drive i believe i brought. because i don't want to upset anyone, and i'm clear i am sorry for that, but that is not bullying. we cannot deliver for the people if the bar is that low. reporter: what about your future in politics? >> allow the dust to settle. i'm confident the prime minister will win the next election. i think he's done a fantastic job. as a result of the strong campaign, we are well set. reporter: with you as a candidate? >> allow the dust to settle. it's not ultimately my decision. i've been overwhelmed with support from constituents, counselors and mps, above all a lot of ministers now are very fearful the direct challenge

they bring, fairly, squarely in government, may lead to the rest of the same treatment i ve had. reporter: thank you. >> jonathan blake at westminster this evening. we've got three highly relevant panelists who we will talk to. we tried to contact conservative mps today. what's going on? reporter: they are keeping unusually quiet in the aftermath of dominic raab's resignation. we haven't had many of them on the airwaves today. some having their say privately, publicly elsewhere. one, jacob rees-mogg, defending dominic raab, saying the resignation was unnecessary and the prime minister shouldn't have accepted it, aligning himself with the view the threshold for bullying, which d been set in adam tolly's

report was far too low, and that civil servants in his words "if you are senior and well-paid you should have the backbone of being criticized if your work is not good enough." there will be others that agree with that and are worried this evening about the outcome of the report and what it means for ministers are able to do in various departments in terms of holding civil servants to account, taking them to task about work and demanding high standards. that is the debate that will play out now after dominic raab's incendiary remarks about a small minority of activist civil servants with a passive-aggressive culture of blocking government reforms. there is also debate about what constitutes bullying. >> last nig, the allies who came out to speak for dominic raab insisted he believed he could survive the report.

are you getting any information as to what happened? >> no. i don't think dominic raab suggested anything other than, in his interview with chris mason, which you just heard, then his intention to stick by his original commitment, which was if the report found him to be guilty of bullying behavior, th he would resign. the report did. as such, he resigned. he made clear he didn't think the threshold met, as far as the report concerned, was one in his eyes that constituted bullying. having had the chance to sleep on it and come out today with conclusions of the report in black and white, decided he had no choice but to step down. downing street insisted he wasn't being lent on or asked, or persuaded to resign.

the prime minister didn't have to make a decision. >> where does this leave the prime minister politically? these sort of things tend to blow over. i don't know if there's any cut through with the public. where does it leave him politically with his backbenchers? >> it is the third cabinet minister, rishi sunak, has lost in unenviable circumstances. dominic raab was found to bully civil servants in this report. there was also the former chairman of the conservative party who resigned over his tax affairs and gavin williamson, the former education secretary in rishi sunak's government, who was also taken to task over his conduct. if that is seen as a pattern, it is not good for rishi sunak. dominic raab was a staunch ally,

key supporter and an important job in government he would never wanted to se lightly. the prime minister will hope replacing him with new figures, very different in their style and approach, might draw a line under it. he won't want to lose anyone else. >> thank you very much. henry hill, from conservative home, dave, general secretary of the fda union, and bob, former head of the home civil service. thank you. dave, the central allegation he makes against the union, possibly you, he says he was warned by britain's most senior civil servant he was being targeted by unionized officials, plotting a kafka-esque attempt to force him from office. >> that trumpian pattern --

[indiscernible] -- all we've done is sought to represent members who approached us about making a complaint over the last few months. he says we are overly unionized. [indiscernible] it's extraordinary he's coming out in this way. it's a desperate attempt to suggest there is political motivation here on blocking reports. he doesn't say which happened to have been blocked. [indiscernible] until october-november this year. he is desperate. he knows this is damaging to his reputation in government. he's been given freedom to make those accusations.

it's clear he resigned and published a 2000 word essay about this report and was allowed to do that by the prime minister. >> he points out before any cabinet appointment, the office of propriety and ethics minister on four occasions including october '22 when he returned to the ministry of justice, was given a clean bill of health. what he says in the letter, the complaint, three months, eight months, one-year-old were gathered together to put a case against him. why were they not reported in a more timely fashion? >> actually, if you recall chris mason interviewed the prime minister in november and asked him if he had been briefed about concerns about dominic raab. it was excruciating couple minutes of interview. the prime minister refused to

say. if you want to complain about a minister, the only way that can be done is -- [indiscernible] -- that was boris johnson. everyone knew boris johnson would not entertain an investigation into his ministers and when it was forced upon him, he refused to accept the signing. they have no confidence raising a complaint about the minister. complaints were trying to be made, which is what we understand the prime minister was briefed about before he appointed him as his deputy. this is a desperate attempt by dominic raab to paint this as conspiracy theory. >> looking at a review of civil servants survey done in 2018.

19% were concerned there would be repercussions if they blew the whistle. henry hill, no one has confidence in the process, that's why they didn't come forward? >> that has been alleged. no side seems to have confidence in the process. dominic raab has been scathing of the process of the investigation. one of the problems with dealing this issue at the top of government is necessarily because of the unique political role, democratic role the cabinet has, you cannot have normal charges. it would be problematic if a minister could be dismissed by an official or panel. >> there was a report with the former home secretary which found against. she was left in place. the permanent secretary was removed. people complaining in this

report, why they haven't come forward earlier. >> maybe that's true. i don't have windows into their soul. regarding dominic raab, despite the long body, time an of complaint, which is fair, i think, the investigation was valid, nonetheless, only two of the complaints were upheld and based on the report, there was talk in conservative circles about specific instances and ministerial responsibility. calling work woeful is hurtful, but is a grounds for believing? most cabinet ministers come and go and this doesn't happen to them. they don't develop this reputation. some of them develop, change policy agenda.

there wasn't a massive concerted campaign against him. whether you defined it as constituting bullying, dominic raab created a work environment that was unpleasant for his staff and that is why this has happened. while we may debatthe significance of where this committee and reports at the bar, it's nonetheless the case it is hard to dress this up as conspiracy. there are quite a few right-wing cabinet ministers in this government. civil service doesn't seem to be gunning for all of them. >> inquiry was flawed, the complaint process was flawed, it was the classic non-apology apology. i wonder if you thought about where this leaves relations for this government and the civil service? >> clearly dominic raab is an angry man lashing out in all directions really. in my view, the one thing he isn't doing is accepting

personal responsibility for his behavior. the consequences have flowed from it. the bar was set at the level of the code, the ministerial code. that was what adam tolley used. i didn't think it was too low. he clearly dismissed some complaint. he found serious issues in at least two cases as we know about what might be perceived as intimidation and overbearing behavior toward civil servants that undermine them in their work. my personal view is the decision is the right one, whether he did jump or was pushed is not the point. he needed to go in the light of this report. it's not just about the dictionary definition of bullying. it's about whether his behavior was appropriate for a sitting minister, who ought to be setting the highest standards. we shouldn't see this as some

great constitutional issue. >> i was going to ask you. he makes allegations that speak to the criticism he makes about the civil service saying there was systematic leaking of fabricated claims in breach of the code, the coercive removal of a senior official who designated private secretaries from his ministry and then he says they are blocking the work of the government with passive aggressive tactics. no one knows the civil service better than you. he's not the only person to have made that complaint. it has risen before. >> it has. as henry said, the bulk of relationships between civil servants and ministers are positive and constructive. i don't think you can say seriously this is an endemic issue. i think it is a fabricated issue by dominic raab. civil service knows their job is to serve the government of the day. if they can't servehem, deliver policies, then they need to leave. some have.

to accuse them of some campaign against the government is deeply undermining trust that needs to be there between the civil service and ministers. i seriously worry about that. he should focus on his own behavior. >> david davis said he takes his job seriously, works incredibly hard and expects the same from others. that, he says is liable to run slap bang into the problems of lower expectations of work. is that fair? do you think he's right? that the bar has been set much lower and that maybe civil servants need to have a thicker skin? >> i can't speak to the specifics. i don't know them. it is the case different people can have different expectations in the workplace. in the private sector, someone like dominic raab would probably

be senior in their organization and they would be setting the tone of that organization. as a cabinet minister, you are rotated into a department long before you arrived, and will be there long after you left. you could see that you would have a clash. some of this stuff, not to downplay the serious allegations, but some of this, it is strange, at least to me, you can see how it might seem strange to dominic raab, this is the kind of thing people would complain about. the idea as a manager you cannot tell someone their work is substandard. that becomes tricky. if you defined by how people feel about it rather than having an objective standard of behavior, that becomes very difficult to police. suddenly, something with, he's a bully. >> we will have to leave it ther we go to break. thank you very much indeed. stay with us.

after the break, we will talk football. it is friday, after all. ♪ narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... narrator: financial services firm, raymond james. man: bdo. accountants and advisors. narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. by judy and peter blum kovler foundation; pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. and by contributions to this pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ ♪ narrator: you're watching pbs.

♪ ♪ narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... woman: architect. bee keeper. mentor. a raymond james financial advisor tailors advice to help you live your life. life well planned. george: actually, you don't need vision to do most things in life. it's exciting to be part of a team driving the technology forward. i think that's the most rewarding thing. people who know, know bdo.