Dominic Raab bullying claims: Rishi Sunak accused of ‘dither and delay’ after decision about deputy PM’s fate postponed – live

Sunak accused of ‘dither and delay’ after decision about Raab’s fate postponed at least until tomorrow

The Liberal Democrats have accused Rishi Sunak of “dither and delay”. In a statement on Dominic Raab, Wendy Chamberlain, the party’s chief whip, said:

People will be fed up with this dither and delay from Rishi Sunak. It feels like almost every week there is an issue with sleaze and scandal where Rishi Sunak is either implicated himself or too weak to get to grips with it. People are crying out for a government that will just get on with tackling the issues that matter, not focused on saving their own skin.

Updated at 12.18 EDT

Key events

The general secretary of the FDA civil service union has criticised the process of deciding the fate of Dominic Raab.

Dave Penman tweeted: “Can you imagine being a civil servant who has raised a complaint, sitting in the department that Dominic Raab is the secretary of state for, watching TV to find out your fate?

“This whole process is a farce. We need serious reform of the way ministerial bullying is dealt with.”

According to the BBC’s Chris Mason, allies of the civil servants who complained about Dominic Raab are furious that no decision is being taken today about his future. On the BBC’s live blog, Mason reports.

Those representing the complainants are livid: many of them are in the Ministry of Justice, watching rolling news, knowing the deputy prime minister knows who they are.

That’s all from me for today. My colleague Nadeem Badshah is taking over now.

Sunak accused of ‘dither and delay’ after decision about Raab’s fate postponed at least until tomorrow

The Liberal Democrats have accused Rishi Sunak of “dither and delay”. In a statement on Dominic Raab, Wendy Chamberlain, the party’s chief whip, said:

People will be fed up with this dither and delay from Rishi Sunak. It feels like almost every week there is an issue with sleaze and scandal where Rishi Sunak is either implicated himself or too weak to get to grips with it. People are crying out for a government that will just get on with tackling the issues that matter, not focused on saving their own skin.

Updated at 12.18 EDT

The delay in announcing a decision about Dominic Raab provides an obvious attack line for Labour. This is from the Labour MP Stella Creasy.

It was nice of No 10 to tell us when Rishi Sunak received the Raab report, but previous administrations might just have refused to say until they were ready to make an announcement. Boris Johnson sat on the report into the Priti Patel bullying allegations for months before announcing what it said, and what he was doing about it (nothing). See 4.50pm.

Other journalists have also been briefed that No 10 won’t announced the outcome of the Dominic Raab investigation tonight.

These are from ITV’s political editor, Robert Peston.

What ministerial code says about bullying, and how Whitehall has previously ruled it does not have to be intentional

And this is what the ministerial code says about bullying officials.

Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect. Working relationships, including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the ministerial code and will not be tolerated.

Dominic Raab has always insisted that he did not bully officials, but that he did set high standards. To understand the point at which imposing high standards tips into bullying, it is worth reading what Sir Alex Allan wrote when, as the No 10 ethics adviser, he was asked to investigate claims Priti Patel, the then home secretary, was a bully.

No 10 never published his full report. But in November 2020 they did publish this summary of his findings. This is what Allan said about bullying.

I believe civil servants – particularly senior civil servants – should be expected to handle robust criticism but should not have to face behaviour that goes beyond that …

The definition of bullying adopted by the civil service accepts that legitimate, reasonable and constructive criticism of a worker’s performance will not amount to bullying. It defines bullying as intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down.

Allan concluded that some of Patel’s behaviour did reach this threshold. But he said that there was no evidence she was aware of the impact of her behaviour – implying that bullying did not require intent.

Allan said that although Patel did breach the ministerial code, because her conduct could be described as bullying, she might have breached it “unintentionally”.

Boris Johnson decided to kept Patel in post despite this finding. In response, Allan resigned.

Updated at 12.12 EDT

No 10 won’t announce decision about Raab’s future today

No 10 is not going to announce a decision about Dominic Raab’s future today

Updated at 12.07 EDT

What Adam Tolley was asked to establish in his report on Raab

It is worth pointing out that Adam Tolley KC, who carried out the inquiry into Dominic Raab, was only asked to “establish the facts”, according to his terms of reference.

He was not asked to recommend what should happen to Raab.

And, according to the terms of reference, he was not even asked to form a judgment as to whether those facts show that Raab did bully officials. The terms of reference are explicit about that being Rishi Sunak’s job. They say:

As set out in the ministerial code, the prime minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.

Updated at 12.12 EDT

This is from John Hyde from the Law Society Gazette.

No 10 says it is still hoping to publish Raab report ‘swiftly’

At the afternoon lobby briefing Downing Street said Rishi Sunak was still considering the Dominic Raab report. The PM’s spokesperson said they wanted to publish it “swiftly”, but they would not say when.

This is from the BBC’s David Wallace Lockhart.

The longer this goes on, the better it may be for Raab.

If the report was clear-cut, with definitive proof of bullying, then Sunak’s decision would be easy, and we would probably have had an announcement already about Raab’s departure.

But if Adam Tolley KC, who investigated the bullying allegations and wrote the report, has produced something more nuanced and inconclusive, then he will have left the final judgment about what to do with Raab much more in the hands of Sunak. That may be where we are now.

Equally, if Raab had been categorically acquitted of any misconduct, we would probably have heard about it by now too. But given the weight of evidence against him, that always seemed the least likely outcome.

NHS threatens legal action to block second day of nurses’ strike

The NHS has launched a legal challenge that could end in the high court to block the second day of an upcoming strike by tens of thousands of nurses, Daniel Boffey reports.

Some advisers in No 10 think Dominic Raab won’t have to resign, Cat Neilan from Tortoise reports.

Bar Council says government amendments to illegal migration bill would undermine rule of law

The Bar Council, which represents barristers, has joined the Law Society in saying the amendments to the illegal migration bill proposed by the government (see 9.35am) would undermine the rule of law.

Nick Vineall KC, chair of the Bar Council, said in a statement:

Legislating to allow the UK government to ignore the rulings of a court undermines the rule of law, which is the foundation upon which domestic and international justice systems are built.

How can a government expect citizens to respect judicial rulings if it is willing to ignore them itself?

The Bar Council echoes the concerns raised by the former lord chief justice Lord Thomas. (See 9.35am.) This would be bad law, sets a dangerous precedent, and risks serious damage to the UK’s international reputation. We urge the government to reconsider this move.