Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
SIR MICHAEL
JAY KCMG, MR
DAVID WARREN
AND SIR
MICHAEL WOOD
KCMG
25 JANUARY 2005
Q1 Chairman: Sir Michael, may we welcome
you and your two colleagues to the Committee. You have with you,
Mr David Warren, who is the Director of Human Resources, and Sir
Michael Wood, who is the legal adviser at the Foreign Office.
Basically what I will try and do in opening is to prepare the
ground on this for colleagues. We know that allegations were made
to this Committee relating to criminal acts by FCO personnel,
a member of the FCO abroad, and it began when these allegations
were made before the Committee. You know the essence of the allegations
so we will need to look both at the personal side and at the general
issues which follow. It is alleged *** that there are certain
general points about the extent of the jurisdiction of criminal
acts committed abroad and also various individual matters. May
I ask you various individual questions to hopefully tease this
out for colleagues. When was this matter first brought to your
attention?
Sir Michael Jay: Could I say,
first of all, Chairman, that I am grateful to the Committee for
agreeing to delay the hearing today and also for operating in
confidence rather than in public. I think I should also say that
I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss with the
Committee a number of general issues which arise from the particular
case. I will have some difficulty in going into great detail on
the individual case because of the mutual trust and confidence
which is implied in all employment contracts which we have with
our staff, which applies to our staff even after they have left
it—ex-employees as well as existing employees—and
that is particularly the case when talking about matters which
have not been fully investigated. *** So I wanted to begin by
saying, I am very happy and indeed keen to discuss the lessons
which arise, of which I think there are a number, from this particular
case, but I would have some difficulty in going into the details
of some aspects of the individual case to which you have referred.
Q2 Chairman: We hear you on that, Sir
Michael, but these are privileged proceedings, they are proceedings
in Parliament, and that is another aspect before us. Clearly although
there are individual questions, they will have general relevance.
Sir Michael Jay: Indeed.
Q3 Chairman: For example, when I asked
the question, was this matter brought to your attention at the
time, it is clearly relevant as to how high in the hierarchy such
an important matter is raised.
Sir Michael Jay: Indeed.
Q4 Chairman: Was it raised with you at
the time?
Sir Michael Jay: No, it was not
raised with me at the time. As far as I remember I was first aware
of this, I would think, probably in the summer of 2003.
Q5 Chairman: So a fortiori it
was not raised with the Foreign Secretary?
Sir Michael Jay: No, it would
not have been raised with the Foreign Secretary.
Q6 Chairman: How high in the Foreign
Office personnel did it go?
Sir Michael Jay: The first point
of course is that the issue would have arisen— I am not
quite certain— the question would have arisen for the Ambassador.
The Ambassador of the day would have been the first person to
have been aware of it and to have taken the necessary action.
Q7 Chairman: But within the London establishment?
Sir Michael Jay: In the London
establishment, it would have been dealt with by the Director General
of Corporate Affairs.
Q8 Chairman: Having now had an opportunity
to consult the papers, are you satisfied that in this case all
proper procedures were carried out?
Sir Michael Jay: I think if the
case were to arise now, it would be handled differently in a number
of respects. If you would like me—
Chairman: Having set the position I will
let my colleagues—
Andrew Mackinlay: I would be pleased
to hear Sir Michael.
Chairman: These are important questions.
I will call you first, but I am just setting the scene.
Andrew Mackinlay: I think colleagues
would like to hear from Sir Michael. He can paint the canvas and
we can put some questions to him.
Mr Mackay: I agree with Mr Mackinlay,
I think Sir Michael was just about to explain some of the lessons.
Q9 Chairman: Briefly give us the lessons
and we will proceed from there.
Sir Michael Jay: *** I have to
say there have been one or two other similar cases in which I
have drawn the same conclusion, so this is not entirely unique.
*** I think we would also now, if it were to arise in the future,
have expected *** So looking back on it, having looked at the
papers really in some detail for the first time in preparation
for this appearance, I think a number of lessons can be learnt
from it. I make the point again the Committee, not just from this
case—and I take no pleasure in saying that—because
we are in the process of modernising and tightening up, making
more effective our human resources procedures, I think we would
have handled it differently. I should also say that the full facts
of this particular case have never actually been established in
disciplinary proceedings. I have read some of the papers in which,
and you have described them, there are a number of allegations,
but again the facts were never established in a disciplinary hearing
so it is difficult to be quite certain what the facts were and
therefore to make any clear judgments about it.
Q10 Chairman: ***
Sir Michael Jay: ***
Q11 Chairman: ***
Sir Michael Jay: ***
Q12 Chairman: ***
Sir Michael Jay: ***
Q13 Chairman: ***
Sir Michael Jay: As I think I
said just now, I would prefer to answer that in the generality.
If a similar case of this kind arose now, then we probably would
have handled it differently and perhaps the posting would not
have taken place.
Q14 Chairman: That poses various other
questions. ***
Sir Michael Jay: Perhaps I can
ask for assistance from Mr Warren on this—in a case of this
kind, clearly a serious case, we would have relied very heavily
on the advice and guidance of the Ambassador of the day.
Mr Warren: If I could add, the
responsibility under our procedures for investigating potential
disciplinary action lies with the line manager of the officer
concerned.
Q15 Chairman: ***
Mr Warren: ***
Q16 Chairman: ***
Sir Michael Jay: ***
Q17 Chairman: ***
Sir Michael Jay: ***
Q18 Chairman: ***
Sir Michael Jay: ***
Q19 Chairman: ***
Sir Michael Jay: ***
| 
