Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20 - 39)

TUESDAY 6 JUNE 2000

SIR DAVID WRIGHT, MRS BARBARA PHILLIPS, MR DAVID HALL AND MR DAVID WARREN

  20. You also made reference to outputs in your remarks. Do you think you could send us copies of the information, because other Government agencies tend to publish these figures. We realise it is early days yet, but if you could make that available to us we would be grateful.
  (Sir David Wright) Yes, certainly. In the report on our first year, which is in the pack which is distributed, we have listed our objectives. What we are now seeking to do is to translate those objectives into a set of key targets for the coming year. Those are already available and I could let you have a copy of those. The next stage on from that will be to develop some market specific outcomes related to our trade development purpose, which is to bring new companies to the market. We will be seeking to establish how we can give individual posts specific targets in terms of the number of new companies they introduce into the market, and the relative success of those companies. We have not got those out yet but we can let you have the first.[2]

  Chairman: When they become available we would be grateful.

Ms Perham

  21. The Memorandum of Understanding between BTI, DTI and FCO, what progress has been made on that?
  (Sir David Wright) The progress is as follows: we have reached a clear agreement with the DTI over what is called our "programme budget"; that is the budget we use for promotional activities, which is of the order of £67 million this year. That has now been vested in me as the Accounting Officer for that budget. I now have complete responsibility for the operation and use of that budget. There are two other budgets which I am responsible for, and they are the running costs budgets from the two departments which cover essentially staff costs. We have not yet been able to finalise the agreement in that area. When I said at the outset that over the last 13 months we have done pretty well everything which the Wilson Review instructed us to do, the one thing we have not done is address the problem you are now addressing. We still have to find a way of identifying clearly the running costs for the FCO overseas, and that relates to a point which I mentioned to Mr Berry earlier on, which is that a lot of FCO staff overseas are not actually doing 100 per cent. commercial work; they are splitting their commercial work on inward investment work, or they are splitting their commercial work with consular work or public diplomacy work. There are also some additional costs associated with staff overseas which go beyond their salary. On the DTI side, the DTI running costs I have no problem with. I know what the sum of money is; I know what the running costs are; I know how much everything costs me; I can manipulate and move that money freely. We have not, however, actually signed the agreements yet with the DTI because we are seeking to finalise an agreement with the FCO and settle those two running cost elements of the triangular concordat at the same time.

  22. That is a problem for the resource management structure, is it not, until that is sorted out?
  (Sir David Wright) You are, if I might say so, extremely well informed. There is a resource management problem within the FCO in terms of this process of identification. They can tell me how many man years they allocate to trade promotion, but quantifying that in specific monetary terms is still proving difficult.

  23. Or even woman years!
  (Sir David Wright) I apologise for that. Perhaps you get more out of woman years.

  24. I am sure you do. I am sure my colleague would agree with me! It is difficult to know where we are at the moment. As far as you know at the moment, are you happy with the resources which are allocated to you?
  (Sir David Wright) Not at all.

  25. Perhaps that is a silly question.
  (Sir David Wright) No, it gives me an opportunity to say I am not at all happy with the resources that are allocated to me. I think one of the problems which I face, or have faced over the last year, is that the Wilson Review invented this new organisation in the course of the Comprehensive Spending Round. Hence, we were brought into existence against an envelope of resources which was already fixed. The money I have available from the two parent departments for 2000-01 is a sum of money that was agreed by those two departments with the Treasury in the CSR in 1998. Hence, since we were not in existence at that time, we are in effect trying to do more than was provided for in that 1998 CSR settlement. That has been a problem because I have had three new areas to which I have had to allocate resources: one has been to introduce a new IT structure, to have all our information and all our services available on-line through our new gateway, which we announced last week—which is an expensive activity even if you developed it inhouse; secondly, we have had to set up our regional operation without new resources; and, thirdly, we have had to do more on the sectoral promotion—looking at particular industry opportunities in foreign markets than we have done in the past. I am not well provided for in terms of resource in this particular year; it will be very tight indeed. I am now, of course, engaged in encouraging the two secretaries of state to bid for additional resources in the Spending Round which will conclude, one anticipates, some time in the next two months.

  Ms Perham: Alongside everyone else.

Mr Rowlands

  26. This raises some rather more fundamental policy issues and departmental issues. From the information we have in our notes, the present budgetary structure is roughly this, is it not: there is £67 million worth of programme expenditure, and £31 million for running costs in the UK on the DTI budget, that is £98 million or thereabouts; and the running costs of the overseas posts, although it is still difficult to calculate, is in the order of £90 million; so it is almost half and half between the two departments, but slightly more on the DTI. Coming now to this negotiated Comprehensive Spending Review for the next three-year programme, you said you are asking the two secretaries of state to come into bat on your behalf, but are you as an organisation making a collective bid for a BTI budget for the next three years?
  (Sir David Wright) First of all, the description you have given of the resources is absolutely spot on, and we are in total agreement on that. Secondly, I can only put in a consolidated bid through the two secretaries of state. Those are the two political masters on whom I depend. Broadly speaking, I am looking to the Foreign Secretary to provide him with some more resources for the delivery of services overseas in posts overseas. I am looking to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to provide me with some additional resources here in the UK particularly in respect of two of the issues which I mentioned a moment ago. One is the development of our gateway; and the second is the development of a better filled out regional structure. The gateway is a sort of capital expenditure issue. The regional structure is very much a human running cost staff issue. If I could just take you a bit further through that. One of the principles behind Wilson is that we should engage more in trade development than in just trade promotion. The concept being that we need to actually bring more companies into this activity than we have done in the past. That is something which we very much want to deliver through the regions, through the International Trade Directors in each English RDA whom we have now appointed. Also sitting alongside the Small Business Service (which, as you will be familiar with, has now been set up on the newly drawn Business Link map) we will have British Trade International people, trade partners, UK people, alongside the Business Links.

  27. I can see something of a tug taking place between the departments. Although we are talking about mature joined-up government in this respect I can see, when it comes to budgets, a pull in different directions. We, as the Foreign Affairs Committee, have repeatedly reported the understaffing in many of our posts on commercial work vis-a-vis our German or French opposite numbers. We have endlessly brought up in annual report after annual report these discrepancies in staffing costs and resources. I can therefore see a Foreign Secretary, even within this new joined-up structure, wishing to make a bid to the Treasury in the Spending Review for a significant increase in frontline investment in commercial posts etc. or Latin America or whichever target area. At the same time, what you have been describing to us is the other side, that the priority must be to actually get our small SMEs, and that would imply a significant amount in the budget of the DTI in terms of running costs and programme expenditure. Whereas you might have joined up, is there not going to be a competing, conflicting priority in terms of the Spending Review over the next years?
  (Sir David Wright) I think you are absolutely right to say there is always going to be a tug over the resources and how you can prioritise them.

  28. Are both secretaries of state willing to allow you to be the arbiter?
  (Sir David Wright) This is why the question I answered a moment ago about the concordat is so important, because once we have the concordat settled I am expected to be the arbiter of all this.

  29. After the three year decisions have been taken?
  (Sir David Wright) Yes, but once the funding is available, if I have the flexibility which follows from the concordat, I will be able to shift the resources around as a function of judgment on where they should be placed. This takes me back to a point Sir John Stanley raised about the Board. This is why the Board is very important and why, within the findings of the Wilson Review, there is a clear instruction that the Board should confirm the Chief Executive's decisions on resource allocation; because the Board is meant to be business focused and will be able to give a view on the sort of issues which you have been referring to. The tug takes place, and I have to see how I can operate within that tug—hopefully with the sort of flexibility which, if I can get this concordat finally agreed with the Foreign Office, I will have—but then the Board will take a judgment on how much that meets the needs of business.

  30. The Foreign Secretary at this moment in time, for the next three-year Comprehensive Review, will be making a bid to the Treasury and he will obviously be making a significant bid for increased commercial work, frontline commercial work in posts; the select committee will be pressing him; he gets quite a lot of what he wants on that side as a part of his budget, and the DTI will be making its perspective bid. Are you saying if you get this Memorandum of Understanding you can switch the money that the Foreign Secretary has fought for, for his frontline commercial work in posts, to say programme work to encourage SMEs? Is that what you are seeking?
  (Sir David Wright) Could I list what I am seeking. What I am seeking in the first instance is the capacity to shift resources around the international network. That is, in a sense, the most important target which I have. I think, rather perhaps reflecting what you have said about the findings of select committees in the past, we have not operated with enough fleetness of foot overseas in moving staff into markets which take off and away from markets which suddenly become rather static. I think the classic case for that was the 1997 Asian economic crisis, when maybe we should have been able to move some of our staff from some of those South East Asian countries where exports plummeted into, perhaps, North America more quickly. That is certainly what flexibility is designed to do. That is my first target. Even without the concordat I have already been able to employ some of this flexibility as a result of the sort of activity which I have referred to with Ms Abbott when I said we were seeking to identify more outcomes from our posts; we have actually reduced some staff in one part of the world to provide us with an increase in our staff.

  31. That stays in the FCO budget. Do you have the power to shift money from an FCO agreed budget in the Spending Review to a DTI budget if that is what you decide the priority to be? Is that possible?
  (Sir David Wright) It will be possible under the terms of the Wilson Review. It does envisage a movement of the balance of resources from one side of the operation domestic to overseas, or overseas to domestic.

  32. That is not yet agreed in this Memorandum of Understanding?
  (Sir David Wright) Until I get this Memorandum of Understanding agreed I do not have this flexibility. Your question is very important for me, because it allows me to emphasise to the Committee just how crucial this is. Unless we can reach that position we will not have this flexibility which will give us that fleetness of foot.

Chairman

  33. I am sorry, I am at a loss here. We can understand the problems of finance and the fact that it will not be resolved for another two months; but why has it taken 13 months to get to the point where the Memorandum of Understanding and the recommendations of the Wilson Report are not being realised? Where is the problem?
  (Sir David Wright) The problem, Chairman, is with the Foreign Office management information system, which does not allow them to identify clearly the specific resources which are allocated to commercial work overseas and, hence, to encapsulate that in a sum of money which can therefore be embodied in a document which we will sign, which will make me the additional Accounting Officer.

  34. Is it really a big problem?
  (Sir David Wright) Yes.

  35. With all the clever people who are supposed to be employed in the Foreign Office one would have imagined that two or three in a darkened room for a weekend could sort it out. This is a major initiative and it has been held up within the Foreign Office for reasons best known to themselves. This is the kind of bureaucratic obstructionism which is supposed to have been outlawed under the doctrines of joined up government. Here is the Cabinet Secretary suggesting something that has been agreed by Government, and then some people in Whitehall are digging their heels in. Am I putting words in your mouth?
  (Sir David Wright) I think I would say you probably were, Chairman, yes.

  36. That does not mean to say they are not true!
  (Sir David Wright) I equally would not take issue with you on that. I think that the process of trying to resolve my problem with this issue we are debating has actually put the Foreign Office up against a problem which they perhaps were not as aware of as they might have been. As a result of trying to find a way through this intractable issue of how you deal with a man who is 50 per cent. commercial, 20 per cent. consular and 30 per cent. information, whose man is he; equally, how do you account for his housing, how do you account for the education of his children; on whose budget does all that money fall? Those issues have caused the Foreign Office to revise its attitude to management information and it is about to introduce a new system. It is about to put the whole process of modernising its management information system on a new footing. I welcome that and the sooner it can be done the better. Within the constraints created by that problem, we are trying very hard. I feel it strongly because, as I say, it is the only issue within the review that remains uncompleted.

  37. That is quite important.
  (Sir David Wright) It is very important.

  38. How can the Foreign Office go to the Treasury seeking greater resources when it does not know what it is spending at the present moment?
  (Sir David Wright) The Foreign Office knows what it is spending at the moment, but it is a matter of how it expresses it in a way in which it can transfer that sum of money.

  39. And how it can increase the levels.
  (Sir David Wright) It knows how many man or woman years it employs in this area, but in regard to breaking it down into particular commercial functions or for particular people in particular markets, a more sophisticated system is needed.


2   See page 16. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 23 June 2000