Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - May - September 1998 > C.1488/96
First Report Session 1998-99
Volume 3 - 1st Report - Session 1998-99
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
Failure to deal with a complaint about the actions of a British Ambassador
5.1. Mr X, who had earlier complained to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) that the Ambassador had responded to a complaint which he had made about a British Consulate by writing a critical letter to his employers as a result of which he had been obliged to leave his employment and so incur considerable financial loss, complained that FCO had failed to deal fully and impartially with his complaint about the Ambassador's action, refusing to acknowledge that it had been wrong.
5.2. My investigation began in April 1997 after I had obtained comments from the then Permanent Under Secretary of State at FCO after the referral of the complaint by the Member's predecessor. I have not put into this report every detail investigated by my staff; but I am satisfied that no matter of significance has been overlooked. Public and private companies are outside my jurisdiction; nor can I investigate action taken in any country outside the United Kingdom other than action taken in the exercise of a consular function on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom. I refer in this report to the actions of Mr X's employers, only to place in context those of the Ambassador and FCO.
Back to top
Investigation
1994
5.3. Mr X was employed by a British company abroad. On 20 April 1994 he wrote to the British Consul in the country where he was working asking why the Consulate charged a fee for a letter of introduction required by another Consulate before they would issue him with a tourist visa. He also complained that a member of staff at the Consulate with whom he had dealt had been officious, unhelpful and rude. He suggested that the Consulate might benefit from employing more British staff (particularly housewives) or from better training of those already employed. By Mr X's own account he delivered that letter by hand to the Consul's residence. On 1 June Mr X wrote to the then Ambassador saying that he had received neither an acknowledgement nor a reply to his letter of 20 April. He repeated the points made in that letter. On 11 June the Embassy sought the comments of the Consul on Mr X's letter. On 12 June the Consul replied that he had not been able to trace Mr X's previous letter, and he had not received it at his house. He said that he was sorry if Mr X had found his staff unhelpful and rude; without more specific information he could not investigate the matter. He said that he understood that wives [of Britons] were precluded from working except in the medical and educational professions, and that husbands and wives were briefed accordingly; he speculated that Mr X might have 'an axe to grind' in that respect. He noted that Mr X was not formally registered with the Consulate, but they had established by whom he was employed. On 18 June the Ambassador wrote to Mr X saying that he was sorry that Mr X had been disappointed by the Consulate. He said that Mr X's letter of 20 April could have gone astray. He said that the Consul would be glad to see Mr X about his complaint if he thought that that would be helpful. He said that the Consulate had a statutory obligation to charge for letters of introduction. Regarding the Consulate's recruitment policy, he said that they employed several wives of Britons; in some jobs they found that the duties and salaries did not attract British wives, so the best candidates turned out to be third country nationals—a practice followed by most employers, including Mr X's own.
Back to top
5.4. On 28 June Mr X wrote to the Ambassador saying:-
'On 1 June I wrote to you, having previously awaited a response for six weeks from your Consul—also without reply. As a full month has now passed and I have received neither answer or acknowledgement from you, Sir, I send this reminder in the hope that between the British Embassy and Consulate some sort of response might be managed to my two unanswered letters. Should this third request fail to generate an answer then I will have no option but to take the matter further.'
At one of his regular meetings with the Chief Executive of Mr X's employers the Ambassador raised the matter of his correspondence with Mr X. On 10 July the Ambassador wrote to the Chief Executive saying:-
'I enclose copies of correspondence as between myself and a Mr X, who I believe is one of yours. If I am right I find his tone pretty aggravating, particularly since:
- the British Embassy, under successive Ambassadors, has played a major role in establishing and maintaining the company's position in this country;
- I understand that company wives are not necessarily encouraged to take employment in British Government offices;
- I assume he is not paying the income tax which enables HMG to maintain representation here;
- He has not bothered to register with the Consulate-General of which he is so critical.'
On the same day the Ambassador wrote to Mr X saying that Mr X's 'intemperate' letter of 28 June had reached him on 9 July and must have crossed in the post with his own letter of 18 June, of which he enclosed a copy. He did not say that he had raised the matter with, and copied the correspondence to, the Chief Executive.
Back to top
5.5. On 11 July the Chief Executive referred the Ambassador's letter to the company's area manager. On 12 July the company asked Mr X to reply in writing to the following questions: -
- why he had gone direct to the British Consulate, rather than through them;
- why he had found it necessary to write to the Consulate in the first instance;
- why he had then found it necessary to write twice direct to the Ambassador;
- by whose authority he had written those letters;
- why he had adopted a style and tone in his letters which were unacceptable to the Ambassador and to them;
- what business it was of his how the Ambassador and the Government decided to run the Consulate;
- whether he had been aware of the likely effect of his actions on the reputation of the company.
On 12 July Mr X wrote to the company's area manager answering each of those questions. In particular, he said that he had written to the Consul and the Ambassador in his private capacity as a British citizen with 'a legitimate concern in the workings of British representative posts overseas'; he had not mentioned the name of his employers or thought it necessary to seek their authority. He had considered the style and tone of his letters to be acceptable in the circumstances and regretted that the Ambassador had found otherwise. He was sorry that the company had become involved and assured them that it would not happen again.
Back to top
5.6. On 13 July the company's area manager interviewed Mr X. According to the area manager's note of the interview, he issued to Mr X a formal written warning dated 7 July. That warning referred to a breach of an established company procedure unrelated to Mr X's correspondence with the Ambassador, and also to an oral warning, which had been given to Mr X on 14 August 1993, that he should not adopt a confrontational style of behaviour likely to cause difficulties for the company in their relationships with other contractors and the customer, and that he should keep a low profile at work so that the attention of the customer did not become unduly focused on him. The written warning said that a more serious approach would be taken should there be any repetition of events which could discredit the company in any way. According to the area manager's note of the interview, having issued the written warning to Mr X, he read to him the correspondence received from the Ambassador, whereupon Mr X offered his resignation. He had then accepted Mr X's resignation, based on his past record of misdemeanours, and concluded the interview. Mr X alleges that he was told by the area manager that if he did not resign immediately there was every chance that he would be dismissed, thus losing all his benefits, and it was made clear to him that the only reason for that demand was the company's embarrassment at the Ambassador's complaint; nevertheless, he said he had not undertaken to resign at that point.
Back to top
5.7. On 16 July the area manager wrote to the company's Chief Executive informing him of the interview with Mr X. He said that Mr X had been left in no doubt as to the Ambassador's displeasure with the content and tone of his letters, had realised that he had overstepped the mark, and on considering his past disciplinary record had offered his resignation. The area manager concluded that Mr X had not had any malicious intent in writing to the Consul and the Ambassador, but had done so without due consideration of the possible repercussions, or of the effect his actions could have on the company's very good personal and commercial relations with the Ambassador and the Consulate. The area manager asked the Chief Executive to offer his apologies to the Ambassador. On 17 July the company sent Mr X a memorandum saying that the area manager had asked them to remind him that his resignation as indicated by him at the interview was awaited. They asked Mr X to complete and return by the following day a form which they had enclosed. On 20 July Mr X gave the company formal notice of the termination of his contract with effect from 24 November, giving as his reason for leaving 'Please refer to the attached memorandum dated 17 July 1994'.
Back to top
1995
5.8. On 4 February 1995 Mr X's then Member wrote to the then Minister of State at FCO in connection with Mr X's complaint that the letter written by the Ambassador had led to his leaving the company's employment. The Ambassador told FCO that he made no apologies for having written as he did to Mr X and to the company, saying that he had been irritated at receiving a rather sarcastic letter from Mr X [that of 28 June 1994 (paragraph 5.4)] in which he had been rebuked and subjected to an explicit threat. He had not sought Mr X's dismissal. He said that Mr X's original letter of 1 June had contained unworthy sentiments about the staff of the Consulate General which could fairly be described as racist, and that his own motives for drawing the company's attention to the correspondence were simply those he had identified in his letter to the Chief Executive (paragraph 5.4) and the fact that as the company were acting as a contractor on a government to government contract he was keeping a close eye on the activities of their employees and kept in close touch with the Chief Executive.
5.9. A FCO official in London minuted internally that the tone of the Ambassador's second letter had been uncalled for, and that there had been no need for him to have written to the company. He noted that what had taken place between the company and Mr X might be a matter of dispute, and that Mr X might seek compensation on the basis that FCO had interfered with his contract. The reply to the Member from the Minister would need to be circumspect. Another official called what had occurred 'unfortunate', but said the Ambassador could not have foreseen that matters would turn out as they did. The then Permanent Under Secretary noted that in his opinion the company had over-reacted. On 21 February, on officials' advice, the Minister wrote back saying that in view of the company's role as a contractor on a government to government contract between the British Government and the Government of the country concerned the Ambassador kept in close touch with the Chief Executive and had accordingly brought to his attention the exchange of correspondence with Mr X. Whatever actions had subsequently been taken by the company were a matter for them. On 27 February the Member replied that he found it absolutely extraordinary and unacceptable that the Ambassador had written to the company about his correspondence with Mr X. He said that that action appeared to have led directly or indirectly to Mr X losing his job. He was surprised that FCO appeared to regard the action of the Ambassador in that respect as normal and acceptable. On 15 March the Minister replied, again on the basis of officials' advice, saying that he shared the Member's concern at Mr X losing his job, but that the termination of Mr X's employment was a matter for his employers. The Minister said he could not helpfully add to what he had said in his earlier letter. On 2 October the Member asked FCO for a copy of the Ambassador's letter of 10 July 1994 to the Chief Executive. On 18 October FCO sent the Member a copy. They said that there was no suggestion in the letter that the company should take action against Mr X.
Back to top
1996
5.10. On 14 April 1996 Mr X wrote to FCO making a formal complaint that the Ambassador had contacted his employers on a matter that had had nothing to do with them and had shared with them private correspondence without informing him or seeking his permission, despite having written to him about the matter on the same day. He also complained that FCO had failed to review the matter independently and to respond satisfactorily to the Member's representations. He asked what remedy FCO proposed for the financial loss he considered the Ambassador's action had caused him. Commenting on the papers FCO's legal adviser said he considered the Ambassador's decision to write to the Chief Executive of the company as he did 'impetuous, ill-judged and unwise'. He interpreted it as a request to shut Mr X up or to get rid of him. He said that he feared that FCO were on weak ground, and that it might be necessary to consider an offer of amends. In the event, however, on 16 July FCO replied to Mr X that their policy on the issue of whether to involve a third party when dealing with a complaint was to consider the matter on its merits, and circumstances would vary from case to case. As to why the company had been involved in Mr X's complaint about the Consulate, they said they could not add to the explanations given on 10 July 1994 by the Ambassador to the Chief Executive and on 21 February 1995 by the Minister to the Member; Mr X had been employed by the company, who were in turn contracted to the British Government. They understood his complaint that he had not been told that the Ambassador had written to the Chief Executive about him; but the full text of the Ambassador's letter had been sent to the Member as soon as the matter had been raised with FCO. They were sorry that Mr X felt that his complaint to them about the Ambassador's action had not been dealt with satisfactorily; letters from the Member had been promptly and fully answered. FCO concluded that the Ambassador had not made any suggestion in his letter of 10 July 1994 that the company should take any action against Mr X. The decision to terminate his employment had been purely a matter for his employers. FCO could not accept responsibility for it; but they were sorry that the result had been financial loss to Mr X.
Back to top
FCO's comments on the complaint
5.11. The then Permanent Under Secretary said that as the company had employed Mr X and acted as a contractor on a contract between the British Government and the Government of the country concerned, the Ambassador and his staff were in close touch with the company's Chief Executive and with other staff on matters concerning the company's operations. It was against that background that the Ambassador had written to the Chief Executive on 10 July 1994 to bring the exchange of correspondence with Mr X, in particular the latter's complaints against the Consulate, to the attention of the company's senior management. The Ambassador had told FCO that he would have expected the company to inform him if one of his staff had gone into print with complaints against the company; the company appeared to have taken the view that Mr X's complaints were indeed a matter of which they should have been aware. At no stage had the Ambassador intended or expected his action to lead to the termination of Mr X's employment. He had suggested no course of action to the company. In any case, any decision over Mr X's employment was one for, and taken by, the company alone. The then Permanent Under Secretary added that any correspondence with representatives of the Government on official matters could not be regarded as personal. He did not accept that there had been maladministration or that Mr X had sustained injustice in consequence of the action of which he had complained.
Back to top
Findings
5.12. Whether registered with the British Consulate and paying United Kingdom income tax or not, Mr X was entitled to complain to the Consul, and subsequently to the Ambassador, if he believed that a Consular official had been rude to him. He was also entitled to query both the Consulate's charging policy if he believed it to be unjustified, and their recruitment policy if he believed it to be inefficient. It appears that in so doing he raised a potentially sensitive issue regarding the employment of British wives. In view of that I do not regard as unreasonable the Consul's decision to brief the Ambassador on Mr X's own employment, against the possibility that there was a hidden context to Mr X's point about recruitment. The Ambassador's letter of 18 June 1994 was in my view a reasonable reply to Mr X's complaint, and it was there that the matter should have ended.
5.13. Unfortunately, it seems that the Ambassador's letter of 18 June took some time to reach Mr X, leading him to send a reminder on 28 June. That letter (paragraph 5.4) suggests that Mr X was irritated at the apparent lack of reply to his previous two letters; looked at from Mr X's perspective at the time I find its tone and approach unobjectionable. Regardless of that, I see absolutely no justification for the Ambassador's letter of 10 July to Mr X's employers. It served no purpose in the proper handling of Mr X's complaint, which had in any case already been dealt with, and the matter could have been laid to rest by doing nothing more than pointing out to Mr X that a reply had already been sent and sending him a copy, as in fact the Ambassador did. The then Permanent Under Secretary of FCO said (paragraph 5.11) that the Ambassador did not suggest any course of action for Mr X's employers to take and had not intended or expected his action to lead to the termination of Mr X's employment. I regard that response as disingenuous: the clear intention was to bring to the attention of the company the Ambassador's displeasure at what were in my view legitimate and reasonable actions which Mr X had taken. The implication was that Mr X had no right to make his complaints—the company documents described in paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 above make it clear that the Ambassador had complained to the company about all three of the letters sent by Mr X, not only the one of 28 June 1994—and that the matter was likely to spoil relations between the Embassy and the company. I find it quite extraordinary and wholly deplorable that the Ambassador should have written to Mr X's employers in such terms. As an official of FCO commented (paragraph 5.9), 'it is not the sort of letter one expects an Ambassador to write to a third party'. It was also wrong of the Ambassador to enclose with the letter copies of Mr X's correspondence, which Mr X was fully entitled to expect would remain confidential. I accept the then Permanent Under Secretary's view that correspondence with representatives of the Government on official matters cannot be regarded as personal; but that does not mean that officials, however senior, have carte blanche to disclose that correspondence to third parties without cause or without warning.
Back to top
5.14. FCO merit severe criticism for their handling of Mr X's subsequent complaint to them about the Ambassador's action. FCO's papers show that officials there appreciated from the outset that the action the Ambassador had taken was not justifiable. That was not admitted outside FCO, however: instead there was a denial of fault and an attempt to defend the indefensible. The replies to Mr X and the then Member were based on the Ambassador's own explanation of his action which he gave FCO on 12 February 1995 in response to the then Member's letter of 4 February. I can accept that the possibility of legal action being initiated by Mr X gave FCO grounds for declining to speculate in their correspondence with him and the Member about the intention and the effect of the Ambassador's untoward letter to Mr X's employers. However, I do not consider that that should have prevented FCO from admitting that, regardless of intention or effect, the Ambassador's letter was wrong in itself, and apologising to Mr X for it. They should have owned up to fault but failed to do so. I see that as maladministration in itself. I asked the present Permanent Under Secretary if he would make good their omission by offering his personal apology to Mr X for all FCO's shortcomings. The Permanent Under Secretary replied that he accepted my findings and apologised unreservedly on behalf of FCO for the fact that the Ambassador had written in such terms to the company on 10 July 1994 and that Mr X's correspondence with the Ambassador had been sent to the company without his consent; and for the way in which his subsequent complaints had been mishandled. Though not entirely convinced that adequate account had been taken of the contextual background or of circumstances in the country concerned at the time, the Ambassador associated himself with the apology.
5.15. I recognise that Mr X's cessation of employment with the company is primarily a matter between him and his former employers. Any dispute between them and its outcome is not a matter for me. Nevertheless, I cannot ignore the fact that the letter of 16 July 1994 from the company's area manager to the Chief Executive specifically said that at the interview between them during which Mr X was said to have agreed to resign Mr X had been left in no doubt as to the Ambassador's displeasure with his correspondence (paragraph 5.7). Nor can I ignore the subsequent comments of FCO's own legal adviser on the matter (paragraph 5.10). I therefore asked the Permanent Under Secretary of FCO if it was proposed to offer compensation to Mr X. The Permanent Under Secretary replied that his view was also that there was no clear evidence that Mr X had lost his job as a result of the correspondence from the Ambassador. Nevertheless it was his clear view that Mr X should be offered a payment, ex gratia, of £5,000 to make amends for the general mishandling of his complaints. Mr X should receive the payment shortly.
Back to top
Conclusion
5.16. The action of the Ambassador of which Mr X complained was wrong and FCO's failure to admit that made matters worse. The Permanent Under Secretary of FCO and the Ambassador have apologised and FCO have offered to make Mr X an ex gratia payment of £5,000. I regard that as a satisfactory outcome to a fully justified complaint.
21 September 1998
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
Short text of this investigation
|
