Letter to the Clerk of the Committee for
the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department, Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, 2 March 2005
FAC HEARING ON FCO DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES—25
JANUARY
Thank you for your letter dated 22 February.
The discussion at the hearing was confidential for very good reasons.
Your Committee took the evidence on that basis. Very little of
what was said could properly have been said in public, because
much of it related to allegations made by and concerning individual
members and former members of the Service and their conduct, and
because it had not been possible to test these allegations in
either a disciplinary or legal process. Since the transcript is
the record of the evidence given in these circumstances I must
repeat the FCO's request that the transcript remains confidential.
As I have said before, the version of events the FAC has been
given differs in some respects from our understanding of the case.
To redact the transcript must mean removing
all references that could identify the details of the case or
former or serving officers involved in the case. I enclose a redacted
version which does this, but of necessity leaves little publishable
material. I very much hope that the Committee will therefore agree
to non-publication of the transcript.
At the hearing, Sir Michael Jay agreed to provide
the Committee with written answers to a number of questions raised
in the discussion. Our response to the various questions is set
out below. This information, where it refers to or identifies
individuals in the case, is provided on the understanding that
it will be treated as confidential.
The Foreign Secretary has seen and approved
this letter, and would be happy to talk to the Chairman about
it, if that would be helpful.
CHRONOLOGY OF
EVENTS
We were asked to provide the following dates:
— the Third Secretary returned from
post on 12 May 2003;
— the Third Secretary gave one month's
notice of resignation from the FCO on 8 September 2003;
— following the conclusion of disciplinary
action against the Deputy Head of Mission, the person was withdrawn
from Post in May 2003.
BRIEFING GIVEN
BY THE
FORMER AMBASSADOR
During the summer of 2002 the former Ambassador
made special arrangements to meet his successor to brief him about
staff issues at Post, which included allegations which had been
made against the Third Secretary by members of the local community.
He also left a written briefing to be read on arrival at Post.
RESIGNATION/DISCIPLINARY
ACTION IN
THE NHS
The Committee referred to NHS disciplinary procedures
which it was said in some cases continue after the employee has
resigned.
The NHS, who were subsequently contacted, are
unaware of specific legislation preventing NHS employees resigning
during the course of a disciplinary process. They confirmed however,
that misconduct procedures are completed in respect of medical
professionals even after they have resigned. In these circumstances,
the NHS makes every reasonable effort to ensure the employee remains
involved in the process, but they will make a judgement, based
on the evidence available, as to whether the allegations about
the practitioners are upheld. If upheld, the matter may be referred
to a professional regulatory body.
This is appropriate for medical professionals
whose employment is governed by professional as well as employment
law considerations, and who will in the main remain in healthcare.
However, there is nothing to be gained in adopting the same approach
for FCO employees. Once an officer has left the service their
contract of employment comes to an end. Realistically there are
no sanctions we can then impose. Furthermore, if the former officer
declines to co-operate with the disciplinary process it would
be difficult to arrive at a reasoned and sustainable decision
in the case. The FCO is not alone in this dilemma which is faced
by most employers.
The Committee may be reassured to know that
the FCO's misconduct procedures are based on ACAS best practice
guidance and are generally very effective in dealing with disciplinary
matters. The Committee may also wish to know that the fact that
an officer has resigned during an unfinished disciplinary process
is reflected in any reference requested by prospective employers.
FUTURE HANDLING
OF DISCIPLINARY
CASES—LESSONS
LEARNED AND
PRINCIPLES TO
BE FOLLOWED
Since April 2003 line managers have been directly
responsible for instituting disciplinary proceedings. Responsibility
previously rested with the central Human Resources Directorate,
who often had a less clear view of the impact of poor behaviour
on the ground.
This case illustrates the importance of ensuring
that line managers exercise these responsibilities promptly. We
have become more rigorous about holding senior managers to account,
through our performance appraisal system, for the way they deal
with their staff. We are now ensuring stricter adherence to procedures
when taking difficult decisions about staffing matters. There
is also a greater awareness of the need for a clear audit trail.
We also have better documented our procedure for operational withdrawal.
This makes clear the right of central Human Resources to withdraw
someone from Post (even where the Head of Post disagrees).
There are now regular review sessions between
staff in London responsible for different aspects of difficult
cases (eg security and medical issues) to ensure that information
is shared and risks are assessed in a co-ordinated way. This gives
FCO central management a much better overview of individual cases
than was available in the past and leads to more informed and
more active management of individual officers.
Chris Stanton
Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Team
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
2 March 2005
| 
