POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS
83. By far the majority of British diplomats are career public
servants, chosen on merit. The introduction of secondments between
the FCO on the one hand, and the private sector and NGOs on the
other, will also lead to the short-term appointment of diplomats
whose main career is outside the diplomatic service. It is only
very occasionally that someone who has not had a diplomatic career
and who is not part of a secondment programmeusually a
politician or public figureis chosen to represent the country
abroad. Sir Alastair Goodlad, the British High Commissioner in
Australia and a former Member of the House, is a current example
of such a political appointment. Previous examples have included
Hon Peter Jay, who served as British Ambassador to the United
States in the late 1970s, at a time when his father-in-law was
Prime Minister; Lord Richard; and the late Lords Harlech and Caradon.
84. We believe that political appointments are generally detrimental
to the diplomatic service and can only be justified if the individual
concerned is judged superior on merit to any FCO candidate. Such
appointments can only tend to undermine the reputation for integrity
and professionalism of the diplomatic service and may cause resentment
within it. If, nonetheless, there are in the future occasions
on which the Government wishes to make political appointments
to diplomatic posts, we believe that it would be entirely appropriate
for us not only to seek an explanation of why these appointments
have been made, but also to assure ourselves of the suitability
of the people so appointed, by summoning them to give oral evidence
before us. This would be in accordance with one of the core tasks
for this Committee, as drawn up by the Liaison Committee and agreed
by the House, to "to consider, and if appropriate report
on, major appointments by a Secretary of State or other senior
ministers."[122]
We intend to consider any future political appointments to
diplomatic posts.
Joined-up Government
85. Sir Michael has made it clear that one of his principal aims
as Permanent Under-Secretary is to see the FCO "more closely
engaged than it is at the present with other Whitehall departments
because I see that foreign policy is increasingly indivisible
from domestic policy".[123]
We welcome his intention for the FCO to work more closely with
other Government Departments, and the fact that an official has
been specifically charged with "establishing closer links
with all the key government departments with whom we have contacts,
talking to them about the services we can provide to them and
being clearer about the common interest that we have".[124]
We recommend that the Government in its response to this Report
make a fuller statement of its priorities in co-operating with
other Government Departments, explaining also what machinery for
such co-operation has been put in place and what progress has
been made.
73
Q 108. Back
74
Value for money target, FCO Public Service Agreement 2001-04. Back
75
Q 117. Back
76
The previous Spending Review target of 3 per cent is being applied
to the year 2003-04. Back
77
Source: Foreign and Commonwealth Office, October 2002. Back
78
Ev 50, Question 5. Back
79
Annual Report, p 138. Back
80
Q 117. Back
81
Q 119. Back
82
Q 120. Back
83
Not printed. Back
84
HC (2000-01) 428, para 16. Back
85
Annual Report, p 139. Back
86
Annual Report, p 18; Ev 50, Question 5. Back
87
An impairment is recorded where money spent on an asset exceeds
its saleable value. In the case of property, this can occur owing
to market fluctuations, but also to expenditure on, for example,
security specifications which exceed market requirements. Back
88
Ev 50-51, Question 6; Annual Report, Table 23, p 137. Back
89
Ev 50-51, Question 6. Back
90
Annual Report, Tables 38 and 39, pp 172-3. Net book value of
capital assets at 31 March 2001. Back
91
Annual Report, p 141. Back
92
Ev 52, Question 8. Back
93
Annual Report, p 142. Back
94
Q 159. Back
95
Ev 52, Question 8. Back
96
HC (2000-01) 428, para 18. Back
97
eg. Evening Standard, 30 January 2002; Economist,
2 February 2002; Financial Times, 1 August 2002. Back
98
Economist, 4 May 2002. Back
99
HC Deb, 26 March 2002, col 812W. Back
100
HC (2000-01) 428, Q 140. Back
101
Annual Report, p 144. Back
102
Ev 82 and Ev 85-86. Back
103
FCO Sponsorship Guidelines, Purchasing Directorate, Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, April 2002. Not printed. Back
104
Q 196. Back
105
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Departmental Report 2001,
Cm 5110, p 117. Back
106
Q 196. Back
107
Q 197. Back
108
HC (2000-01) 428, para 23. Back
109
Annual Report, p 146; Cm 5212, p 2. Back
110
Annual Report, p 152; Q 202. Back
111
Q 202. Back
112
Annual Report, p 152. Back
113
Q 202. Back
114
Q 200. Back
115
Q 200. Back
116
Q 201; Ev 83, paras 21-25. Back
117
eg. Daily Telegraph, 15 February 2002. Back
118
Q 204. Back
119
Not printed. Back
120
Ev 91, Annex A. Back
121
Ev 91. Back
122
Second Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 2001-2002,
Select Committees: Modernisation Proposals, HC 692. Back
123
Q 104. Back
124
Q 105. Back