Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-91)
SIR MICHAEL
JAY KCMG, MR
DAVID WARREN
AND SIR
MICHAEL WOOD
KCMG
25 JANUARY 2005
Q80 Mr Chidgey: My final question concerns
duty of care. You have eloquently explained duty of care towards
your employees, which I perfectly accept, but given the particular
circumstances of the individual—***
Sir Michael Jay: Allegedly.
Q81 Mr Chidgey:— ***
Sir Michael Jay: ***
Q82 Mr Chidgey: ***
Mr Warren: ***
Sir Michael Jay: Not to mine.
Could I just make one small clarification? I think it was the
first question which Mr Chidgey asked about the relationship between
handling an issue in post and handling an issue in London. Issues
will be handled in post unless they are regarded as gross misconduct.
If an activity is regarded as a case of gross misconduct, it would
be dealt with in London.
Q83 Mr Chidgey: Have you reviewed your
procedures in this particular aspect as a result of this case?
Sir Michael Jay: Yes, we have.
This was not well-handled, we know that. It was not well-handled
in London, it was not well-handed in post. We have learnt a lot
of lessons from it. I hope very much the lessons we have learnt
and the way we have tightened our procedures would mean it would
not happen again. As I say, and I say with regret, there has not
been another case quite like this but there have been other cases
in which some of the same kind of issues have arisen which has
led me to believe we need to change our procedures, which we have
done.
Q84 Mr Maples: I am not desperately interested
in this particular case, what I am interested in is the assertion
you made about the duty of confidentiality towards your employees,
whether ex-employees or current employees, means you cannot freely
discuss their cases with us. How high up your employment hierarchy
do you think that duty precludes you from discussing any detail
with us? Would it apply to somebody in your job, or an Ambassador
to the United States who was found to be doing something rather
serious?
Sir Michael Jay: I think it probably
would.
Q85 Mr Maples: So if a very senior British
diplomat were thought to be, and there was evidence, involved
in some scam for, let's say, issuing passports in exchange for
money and there had been a conspiracy and he had been brought
back to the UK for disciplinary procedures which allowed him to
resign, and somebody else who was perhaps peripherally involved
in it and was disciplined in the way—which you are not telling
us—*** you think we would not be able to ask you for details
about that?
Sir Michael Jay: Clearly there
would be aspects of the case which would be entirely proper to
discuss with the Committee, but in any case there would be aspects
of the management of members of the Diplomatic Service, present
or past, which it would be wrong to go into. Members of the Diplomatic
Service now I think would expect that certain aspects of their
relationship with their employer would remain confidential between
the employer and them, whether they were members of or had left
the Service. Of course that does not mean there cannot be any
discussion, there has to be some sort of discussion because that
is part of the Committee's, as I would see it, right to look into
particular cases and see what sort of lessons there are about
the general management of the Foreign Office, which is an entirely
responsible and proper role for the Committee, but I would have
thought there would always be aspects of any case, at whatever
level, which it would not be proper to share with people outside
the employer and employee.
Q86 Mr Maples: The duty you would assert
in the case of, say, a very low level employee in a mission somewhere
who was repeatedly guilty of speeding offences and disciplined
in some way which you were not prepared to tell us about, I have
no problem with; I am happy to leave that to you. But you would
assert exactly the same duty in the case of a very senior official
who was actually perverting British policy for their own ends,
where there was clearly a criminal case involved but perhaps it
was difficult to prove by getting evidence in court under this
Act, where you accepted a resignation? You would say exactly the
same, "We do not have a right to know"?
Sir Michael Jay: I would have
said there were aspects of the handling of such a case which it
would be wrong to discuss with others than those involved in the
disciplinary hearing. That is not to say there should not be any
discussion of it. Normally speaking, the higher up you go, the
more interest you will take in it, and that is entirely understandable,
and there would be aspects of such a case which it would be proper
to discuss, but I think there would always be aspects of the case
which I, as manager of the Foreign Office, would think should
not be revealed outside the relationship between employer and
employee.
Mr Maples: As I have said, I am completely
relaxed about this case but I have to say that if the sort of
case I have hypothetically described were to come up, I and I
suspect a lot of us round this table would show rather greater
interest in how and why it was handled in the way it was. Let
us hope that case never arises but I would press you rather harder.
Q87 Chairman: ***
Mr Warren: *** The normal practice
in such circumstances is to issue of statement of employment from
a given date to a given date, making clear this is not a reference.
Chairman: Mr Mackinlay has asked for
various dates. Do you want to say what you want?
Andrew Mackinlay: What I think the Committee
needs is, first, ***
Q88 Chairman: One final matter: you said
you would expect to be told now if there was a similar case today.
Sir Michael Jay: Yes.
Q89 Chairman: Can you set out why? What
new procedures have been instituted as a result of this case?
Why would you expect to be told? I am afraid we have to rush to
a division. May I thank you, gentlemen, for the clarification
but it is a sorry story.
Sir Michael Jay: As I have said
several times, I do not dissent from your last comment, Chairman.
I would have wished it to have been handled differently and I
do believe a similar case would be handled differently in the
future.
Q90 Chairman: You will tell us why.
Sir Michael Jay: In writing to
you?
Q91 Chairman: Yes.
Sir Michael Jay: Of course.
| 
