Appendix 1—Letter to the Chairman
from Sir Edward Clay, dated 13 June 2007
I have read relevant extracts from the Fifth Report
of the Select Committee and evidence given to the Committee covering
the issue of memoirs of former public servants. I am troubled
by the way in which the FCO in particular has re-drawn its rules
on publications. They have done so in such a way as to give them
wide and vague scope to lean on former members of HM Diplomatic
Service and to interfere with their rights to contribute to public
debate on matters of public interest. The revised rules appear
to compromise their retired colleagues' freedom of speech and
opinion.
I retired from HM Diplomatic Service in July 2005.
I was then British High Commissioner in Nairobi. The FCO changed
its rules for diplomats—embodied in DSR 5 and the corresponding
HSR—in March 2006. Although I was conscious of the drive
for changes and the reasons behind it, I only confronted them
when the FCO selected me for a part-time job later in 2006. I
was then presented with a draft letter of appointment embodying
the new rules. This, taken with the explanatory background, seemed
to me to go very wide. In particular, it would have bound me,
not only while I did this prospective part-time (and non-sensitive
job), but for ever, to seek permission for every utterance I made
in whatever form on any matters on which my opinion might draw
on my professional experience.
I accordingly declined to sign the letter. My prospective
line managers made efforts over the next three months to find
a way of softening the rigour of the rules. But my views on corruption
and comments I made on that subject evidently led the Minister
responsible (Lord Triesman) to refuse to contemplate any variation
in the standard letter of appointment. I was stood down from the
job (in which I had already started work).
What is more important and of deeper concern to me
than having that job removed is that I think the present rules
are excessively wide-ranging and oppressive in their intent and
implication. I understand retiring members of the FCO now have
to acknowledge that the rules apply to them after retirement and,
indeed, until death. Whatever their framers may say now, they
threaten sanctions against a former FCO servant for a broad range
of failures to consult before engaging in public debate. Memoirs
are not the only or even main issue. Nor is the disclosure of
genuinely confidential matters, which are covered by the Official
Secrets Act. The suggestion that diplomats should not say, write
or in any way express views which may draw on their whole professional
experience is very far-reaching. I think it may also be unenforceable.
But the sanctions against expressing opinions without prior clearance
will mean the loss of contributions by diplomats or home civil
servants to discussion of matters of public interest.
It seems to me from what I have read of the evidence
to your Committee and of the Fifth Report that there was no intention
to suppress public discussion nor to prevent contributions to
it from former public servants. The sense of what I read is rather
the other way. And almost every day one hears or sees a former
public servant or senior officer making a contribution which I
expect has not been put through the slow mill of prior official
sanction. I have occasionally done so myself.
My own experience has left me feeling doubtful about
what the FCO's revised DSR 5 is intended to deal with, but disturbed
by the use to which it has been put. I do not believe I have done
anything disloyal in commenting on the issue of corruption, nor
compromised matters which ought to be regarded as Confidential
and are in fact protected by the Official Secrets Act. I suppose
some of my comments since retirement on Rwanda and more particularly
on corruption might potentially have affronted the French Ambassador
and some elements of the Kenya Government respectively, but I
have heard of no serious adverse repercussions at the state level.
As for Ministers, Mr Hilary Benn has been kind enough to exchange
views in writing and orally on a matter on which he knows I feel
strongly and in a sense critical of part of his Department's policy.
It seems his tolerant view is not shared by civil servants in
DfID or the FCO.
My experience, if it is useful at all, might just
be to add a little weight to the Select Committee's evident view
that the FCO and Cabinet Office could better have revised the
relevant rules together and in consultation. In the process perhaps
they might have restrained their indignation over memoirs and
the threat they supposedly present to relations between civil
servants and ministers from being used as a reason for trying
to gag public servants, once their service to the Crown is spent,
from making any comment without prior authorisation.
I have thought hard before writing because I felt
reluctant to bother you. I am not writing to my constituency MP
because I do not have an individual case to pursue, at this stage.
I put it to you as the Chairperson of the Committee reflecting
Parliament's interest in the broader policy. It is that which
bothers me. If you think it useful, I am ready to give more of
the background to my recent experience. I should be very interested
in your comments, in any case.
| 
