Appendix 2—Correspondence between
Committee staff and Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Letter from James Gerard, Second Clerk of the
Committee, to Sir Peter Ricketts KCMG, Permanent Under-Secretary,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dated 15 August 2007
You may be aware that the Public Administration Select
Committee takes an interest in the rules regarding the publication
of memoirs by serving and former public servants. In particular,
the Committee published a report in 2005-06 on this subject which
is still awaiting a Government response.
The Committee has received correspondence from Sir
Edward Clay, a retired diplomat, expressing concern over the effects
of Diplomatic Service Regulation 5 as it has been set since March
2006. In particular, he is concerned that "the present rules
are excessively wide-ranging and oppressive in their intent and
implication". He also suggests that the rules may be damaging
to informed public debate, and that indeed they may be unenforceable.
I enclose a copy of his letter to the Chairman of
the Committee, Tony Wright MP. I would be grateful for your comments
on the issues he raises. I should be clear at this stage that
the Committee is not looking to take up Sir Edward's individual
case but is interested in the questions of general principle which
arise.
I am writing along similar lines to Sir Gus O'Donnell
as Head of the Home Civil Service.
Letter from Sir Peter Ricketts to James Gerard,
dated 11 September 2007
Thank you for your letter of 15 August enclosing
a copy of a letter from Sir Edward Clay to Dr Tony Wright MP,
dated 13 June. You asked for my comments on the general principles
that he raises.
As the Committee is aware, the current publication
rules in Diplomatic Service Regulations (DSR) 5 are based as much
upon established conventions and standards of conduct expected
of all civil servants as on actual legal obligations. On the whole,
the system has worked well but it has not always stood up to challenge
by determined authors, as evidenced by the Committee's report
on the Publication of Memoirs.
In recognition of this, the then Foreign Secretary
set out in a Ministerial Statement on 6 March 2006 that the DS
regulations had been revised to align them with the Civil Service
Management Code and to ensure that they more accurately reflected
their overall purpose. The rules, which apply to both serving
and former officials, are also referred to in contracts of employment
and in letters issued on retirement and resignation.
The Foreign Secretary's statement went on to say
that there would be further revisions in line with any future
changes to the Civil Service Management Code, and that account
would be taken of the recommendations of the Committee when it
published its report. This is reflected in the evidence given
by the Foreign Secretary when he appeared before the Committee
on 29 March 2006.
As you say, the Government has not yet made its response
to the Committee's Report. But my staff have been working with
the Cabinet Office to further clarify our rules and we will be
widening that consultation once the response issues.
I do, however, believe that Sir Edward's contention
that "the present rules are excessively wide-ranging and
oppressive in their intent and implication" is wrong. As
the Committee's report makes clear, there is an important balance
to be struck. On the one hand officials should have the freedom
to write accounts of their time in government which can help inform
public understanding and debate. On the other hand, there is a
public interest in protecting the good working of government particularly
where possible damage to national security, international relations
or trust within Government is involved. The FCO strives to maintain
this balance. Assessing this is always a matter of judgement,
but I do not think that any one individual acting in isolation
can do so reliably.
I continue to believe that former members of staff
are aware of their continuing obligations of confidentiality and
I rely on their good sense and judgement about how much they can
say publicly without reference to the FCO. But I do expect them
to refer to us where they are in doubt, or need guidance about
where the line should he drawn.
I hope these comments are helpful to the Committee.
Letter from James Gerard to Sir Peter Ricketts,
dated 28 January 2008
Thank you for your helpful letter of 11 September
2007. We have taken some time in replying as we were awaiting
the Government's response to our report on the publication of
political memoirs, which we received in November.
I understood from your letter that the intention
was to consult on revised Diplomatic Service Regulations once
that Government response was issued. I do not know if you have
begun that process, but I would be grateful if you could inform
me as to whether that consultation is underway or when you expect
it to commence. Any further details would also be helpful. It
is clear that there is some continuing dissatisfaction, and the
Committee might well want to contribute to any consultation.
Also, it appears that the Diplomatic Service Regulations
are not accessible to members of the public. The House of Commons
Library only has a version which is no longer current, although
I understand that they are looking to rectify that, but is there
any reason why the regulations can not be available online?
Letter from Sir Peter Ricketts to James Gerard,
dated 20 February 2008
Thank you for your letter of 28 January, in which
you ask for further details about the revisions to Diplomatic
Service Regulation 5 following publication of the Government's
response to your report on political memoirs.
The Government's response undertakes to clarify the
rules for civil servants relating to memoirs in the next version
of the Cabinet Office publication Directory of Civil Service Guidance,
which is currently being updated and also in the Civil Service
Management Code. Once this is done, the Diplomatic Service Regulations
will be revised exactly in line with these. I consider it important
to do it this way round in order to avoid any inconsistencies
between the two sets of rules. As your Committee observed, failure
to align changes to Cabinet Office and FCO rules in the past has
resulted in the changes being made in an unsatisfactory way. I
am keen that we avoid this in future.
The proposed revision to Diplomatic Service Regulation
5 will also provide us with an opportunity to update and simplify
the language in the current version, as Lord Malloch Brown said
in response to an oral question in the House of Lords last October.
This should help to clarify the rules and to clear up any misunderstandings
that may have arisen and which may have contributed to the dissatisfaction
to which you refer.
Consultation with our Trade Union side will commence
as soon as the changes to the Civil Service Management Code have
been agreed and we can take forward our own revisions. I cannot
say exactly when this will be, but we will not delay. We would
not normally expect to consult any wider, although I would be
happy to keep your Committee informed about progress.
Finally, thank you for your suggestion about making
the Diplomatic Service Regulations available online. We receive
very few enquiries about these regulations which is why we have
not considered doing so in the past. But I agree that, once the
revisions have been made, we should re-consider this with a view
to publishing them on the FCO website.
| 
