House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Second Report

6 FCO personnel issues

131. In their Report on the FCO's Departmental Report for 2003-04, the Committee in the last Parliament condemned the bombing attack on the British Consulate-General in Istanbul, which resulted in four fatalities.[201] They welcomed additional security measures being taken to protect those who work in the United Kingdom's embassies, high commissions, consulates and other offices abroad and expressed satisfaction that the Treasury was releasing additional funding for these measures.[202] In reply, the FCO described some of the work it was undertaking and reaffirmed that security of personnel is one of its highest priorities.[203]

132. The FCO's Departmental Report for 2004-05 records that more than £21 million has been made available from the Treasury reserve for security measures at Posts overseas, with additional measures being put in place at 167 locations.[204] In a memorandum to the Committee, the FCO informed us that £25 million has been set aside for expenditure on security in 2006-07 and £28 million in 2007-08.[205] We greatly welcome the fact that the need for this work to be properly funded has been recognised. In some cases, we have been able to see the worthwhile results of the work for ourselves. We are also aware, however, that the threat to officials serving abroad is certainly not decreasing and we are concerned that the security works programme is apparently running behind time.[206] We continue to be concerned for the welfare of staff who serve their country in the more dangerous parts of the world. We recommend that the FCO maintain its commitment to ensuring that adequate safety and security measures are put in place, with an appropriate level of funding. This funding should be in addition to the FCO's agreed public expenditure allocation, in recognition of the exceptional nature of the cost of protecting personnel and property from terrorist attacks.

Disciplinary procedures

133. In January 2005, our predecessor Committee heard oral evidence from Sir Michael Jay on the FCO's disciplinary procedures.[207] We followed up this interest when Sir Michael appeared before us in October 2005 and Sir Michael wrote to us after his appearance with further information. He confirmed that no public money has been spent in any of the last five years in settlement of grievance procedures brought against senior FCO staff by junior staff; he informed us of the amounts paid out as a result of Employment Tribunal claims in the last five years; he told us that £60,000 has been paid in damages following court cases in the last year; he provided details of disciplinary cases involving members of the FCO's senior management service in the last three years; and he confirmed that members of staff leaving the service had received payments to which they were entitled, and no more.[208]

Publication of memoirs

134. Over the past months, several cases have illustrated the difficult issues which are thrown up when former senior public servants—specifically, former ambassadors—seek to publish books of their memoirs. The three cases which have featured prominently have been those of Sir Christopher Meyer, former Ambassador to Washington; Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former Permanent Representative at the United Nations; and Craig Murray, former Ambassador to Tashkent (Uzbekistan).

135. We asked Sir Michael Jay about the procedures for clearing these potentially very revealing personal records. He confirmed that all former public servants seeking to publish recollections of their time in post are expected to submit their work to the Government so that it may be vetted. He identified the three criteria that a would-be author should satisfy as "not crossing the line on issues of international relations or public security or […] the need to maintain the confidence of relationships between ministers and senior officials."[209] Finally, Sir Michael confirmed that "the ultimate decisions, the ultimate judgments, will be made by ministers."[210]

136. The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) has been undertaking an inquiry into political memoirs based on the author's period in office, and has taken evidence from, among others, the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Wilson of Dinton, Sir Christopher Meyer and Sir Jeremy Greenstock. Lord Wilson described for PASC the procedure he followed when in office for approving memoirs, including those of the former head of the Security Service, Dame Stella Rimington.[211] Both Lord Wilson's evidence to the PASC and Sir Michael Jay's evidence to us describe what are known as the Radcliffe Rules, a voluntary code of conduct introduced in 1976 following the controversy over the Crossman diaries.

137. As he explained to the PASC in January 2006, Sir Jeremy Greenstock followed the procedures set out in the Radcliffe Rules when he submitted to the FCO draft chapters of his book covering the period he spent as Permanent Representative to the United Nations and as the Prime Minister's Special Representative in Iraq.[212] Sir Jeremy acknowledged that his book was unusual, in that it dealt with matters of current as well as of historical interest, but he pointed out to the Committee that this was not against the rules and, moreover, that he was willing to accommodate changes suggested by the FCO as part of the vetting process.[213] This process became quite protracted and eventually, Sir Jeremy withdrew his book, following an interview with the Foreign Secretary.[214]

138. Sir Christopher Meyer's book was submitted to the Cabinet Secretary. In his case, this was done only after repeated requests from the Government. In a parliamentary written answer on 28 November 2005, the Foreign Secretary told the House that,

215

It appears from this answer that Sir Christopher's book satisfied the first two Radcliffe criteria; it is less clear that it satisfied the third. However, no objection was raised by the Government, beyond a letter expressing disappointment about the disclosure of confidences. Sir Christopher told the PASC that he regarded the Cabinet Office's reaction as giving him "a green light to publish" and he therefore went ahead.[216]

139. Craig Murray states on his website that he submitted the text of his book of memoirs to the FCO on 29 September 2005. In his covering letter, Mr Murray wrote "I rather hope that you do try to prevent publication, because you won't succeed, and it may help me secure a publisher. Publishers in this country remain less than interested."[217] Following exchanges of e-mails between Mr Murray and the FCO, the FCO formally replied to Mr Murray on 8 February 2006, refusing to condone publication of the book, and reserving the rights of the Crown to take legal action. Mr Murray now intends to publish his book in June 2006.

140. Following all this, and in addition to the inquiry being conducted by our colleagues on the Public Administration Select Committee, both the FCO and the Cabinet Office are reviewing the relevant regulations which apply to serving or to former staff.[218] We await the outcomes of those reviews, and the recommendations of our colleagues on the PASC, with considerable interest. Meanwhile, Sir Michael Jay has written to all Ambassadors and High Commissioners, stressing the importance of maintaining the trust and confidence of Ministers.[219]

141. We strongly support the decision by Sir Michael Jay to write to Ambassadors and High Commissioners, reminding them of the importance of maintaining the trust and confidence of Ministers. We conclude that the breaking of trust or breaching of confidence on either side is against the best interests of officials and politicians alike and that it can be inimical to the conduct of effective foreign policy. However, we also conclude that where FCO officials comply with the Radcliffe rules and criteria, they should remain free to publish if they so choose.

Senior diplomatic appointments

142. On more than occasion during the course of the last Parliament, our predecessor Committee recorded its intention to scrutinise any appointment of someone from outside the diplomatic service to a senior diplomatic post.[220] The Government announced its intention to make two such appointments some time ago, but the appointments were actually made shortly after the general election of 2005. Two former Members of the House of Commons who had also been Cabinet Ministers were appointed: Rt Hon Helen Liddell as High Commissioner to Australia, and Rt Hon Paul Boateng as High Commissioner to South Africa. Both appointments were faits accomplis by the time the Committee was nominated in the new Parliament, so we did not hold hearings with them. It is our intention, should comparable nominations be made during this Parliament, to move with some expedition to hold 'confirmatory hearings,' hopefully before the appointments are formally made.

143. A further, if somewhat different case which arose at about the same time was the vacancy for a Head of Mission in the Holy See. In this case, the FCO chose to advertise the appointment last July in the following national newspapers:

The Economist
The Guardian and The Guardian Web page
The Daily Telegraph
The Independent
The Times
The Financial Times[221]

We are concerned that no advertisements were placed in national papers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Ambassadors represent the whole of the United Kingdom. It should not be ignored that for many people the publications listed above can be seen as very London-oriented and 'English'.

144. Sir Michael Jay told us that 120 applications were received for the post.[222] Sir Michael subsequently wrote to our Chairman, informing him that a former diplomat, Mr Francis Campbell, had been successful in the open competition.[223] However, Sir Michael omitted from his letter any reference to the fact that it had already been decided that the new Ambassador should work from offices within the compound of the British Embassy to Italy and that the offices previously used by the Embassy to the Holy See had been closed—according to a newspaper report, in order to reduce costs.[224] Sir Michael later wrote to us, stating that the move was in response to security concerns.[225] He also confirmed that it had been planned to move the Ambassador's residence to within the Rome Embassy compound, but that following representations by the Holy See these plans have been abandoned.

145. We recommend that the FCO provide the Committee with full details of any representations made by the Holy See, by the outgoing British Ambassador to the Holy See, or by the British Ambassador to Italy, about the propriety or acceptability of locating the Embassy to the Holy See or the residence of the Ambassador to the Holy See within the campus of the British Embassy to the Republic of Italy.

DIVERSITY

146. In its Report on the FCO's Departmental Report for 2003-04, the Committee in the last Parliament welcomed the FCO's commitment to recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce, but noted that the Office still had a considerable way to go to meet its diversity targets.[226] The FCO recognised this in its response, noting that it was "unlikely" to meet its diversity targets for 2005.[227]

147. At its meeting on 5 December 2005, the FCO Board noted that they continue to have a poor record in diversity compared to other government departments:

228

We asked the FCO to provide us with a breakdown of the diversity of its staff and received the following information in response.[229]

Total staff by grade, at 1 August 2005[230]

148. The figures for recruitment of permanent staff in 2004-05 reveal an interesting picture, which may explain the concerns now apparently felt by the Board. Although the proportion of all recruits who were women was very close to the proportion of existing staff who are women—41% as against 40.9%—only 33% of recruits to the mainstream graduate entry (C4) grade were women. For FCO Services the picture was a good deal worse: all 28 recruits to the C4 grade in 2004-05 were men.[231] These figures certainly give us cause for concern.

149. The FCO has developed a new Race Equality Scheme (RES) in response to the challenges it faces in conforming with the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.[232] The RES applies to the FCO not only as an employer but also as a service provider, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. However, as with the under-representation of women, the numbers of senior managers from ethnic minorities are disproportionately small.

150. We conclude that the FCO Board is absolutely right to recognise the need to address urgently such gender and ethnic minority imbalances as remain. We recommend that in its response to this Report the FCO provide further information on what it is doing to remedy this situation.

201 Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2003-04, Foreign and Commonwealth Annual Report 2003-04, HC 745, para 56 Back

202 Ibid, paras 62 and 63 Back

203 Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Government Response to the Foreign Affairs Committee's Eighth Report: Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003-04, Cm 6415, November 2004, p 4 Back

204 Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report 1 April 2004-31 March 2005, Cm 6533, June 2005, pp 199 and 200 Back

205 Ev 6 Back

206 Ev 9 Back

207 Oral evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 15 March 2005, HC (2004-05) 436 Back

208 Ev 49 Back

209 Qq 89-90 Back

210 Q 91 Back

211 Oral Evidence taken before the Public Administration Select Committee on 17 November 2005, HC 689-i, Qq 46 and 47 Back

212 Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Public Administration Select Committee, HC689-iii, Q 294 Back