Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-108)
24 JUNE 2003
SIR MICHAEL
JAY KCMG, MR
PETER COLLECOTT
CMG, MR SIMON
GASS CMG CVO AND
MR ALAN
CHARLTON CMG
Q100 Andrew Mackinlay: I am sure
there is a danger of you bursting into tears with the question
I am going to ask now, because it is so unfair, because you have
been defending not selling; but one thing which has concerned
colleagues, I think, over a number of years, when we have gone
to the United Kingdom residence in New York for our Ambassador
to the United Nations, is that that actually is woefully inadequate,
and I think it is now time that we flagged that up. I am conscious
of what was said, and I realise that, basically, at the end of
the day, we vote through the money, but, surely, bearing in mind
the things you said, it is long overdue that the residence of
our Ambassador to the UN, frankly, had better premises, more spacious
premises?
Sir Michael Jay: Yes, I think
it is minimal, in terms of accommodation. Perhaps I could say,
in fact, I am seeing our new Ambassador to the United Nations,
I think, tomorrow, so perhaps I could pass on to him your concern.
Chairman: Will you pass that on.
Q101 Andrew Mackinlay: I need some
brownie points with him anyway.
Sir Michael Jay: May I pass on
your best wishes, Mr Mackinlay, to him?
Andrew Mackinlay: Yes, certainly.
Q102 Mr Chidgey: Just two quick points,
Sir Michael. If you took that concept that you are lumbered with,
of the asset charge, which basically goes with these incredibly
prestigious buildings that we have had over the centuries, and
therefore are of very high value now, if you take that any further
and apply it to this place, the asset charge on that building
there, we would be in an office block at Acton?
Sir Michael Jay: We do not take
it to its logical extremes. Where we have a grand house which
clearly is hugely prestigious and is serving a really good purpose
for Britain, there would be no question of getting rid of it.
We are not talking about those.
Mr Chidgey: Can I go then to something
more modest, in a different part of the world. Recently I was
in Trinidad, and I attended a reception with our High Commissioner
there, who has a rather large bungalow, in a very good position,
which everyone likes to come to for receptions, which is very
good for networking, which is the whole purpose of the place.
Now I understand that the grade of that post meant that when a
relatively junior member of the Foreign Office went out to assess
the property they told the High Commissioner that he was not entitled
to the separate living-room that had been provided in that bungalow
by somebody putting up a wall. Now this is just pedantry by junior
members of the FCO, haranguing our staff there, doing their job,
and being told, "Ah, but you can't have that room there,
therefore we'd better get you a bungalow down the road."
Chairman: And your answer?
Mr Chidgey: You have not the faintest
idea what I am talking about? Go and talk to them, because that
is what is happening.
Q103 Chairman: You will undertake
to go and talk to our High Commissioner?
Sir Michael Jay: I will. It is
a long time since I stayed in the High Commission in Trinidad,
but I will[10]
Q104 Mr Olner: The only thing, Sir
Michael, I cannot understand is the property we have in Prague.
You have just admitted that you have spent over the last 12 months
£800,000.
Sir Michael Jay: In the last two
financial years.
Mr Olner: Yes; but that is an awful lot
of money, and it buys an awful lot of work, I would suggest, in
Prague, to have the building altered or brought up to scratch.
Now if it were sold you would never recoup that money, so, for
goodness sake, why are we even contemplating it?
Q105 Chairman: Well, you will take
into account the strong views expressed in the Committee?
Sir Michael Jay: Yes. I do, indeed,
take account of that.
Q106 Chairman: We have two other
areas of concern. One is locally-engaged staff; what I propose
to do is submit to you various questions on that. The second,
in terms of retirement, prompted by the rebirth of Sir Jeremy
Greenstock, at the age of 60, as our representative in Baghdad.
We are aware that the retiring age for our diplomatic staff is,
I believe, certainly very much at the younger end; can you say
what consideration, if any, is given, in terms of pension, in
terms of promotion prospects, and in terms also of the government
policy in that respect, and the active ageing policy of reviewing
the current retirement age?
Sir Michael Jay: The present retirement
age is 60. There have been occasional exceptions to that. Sir
Jeremy Greenstock, in fact, is one. I will ask Alan Charlton to
say a word about pension arrangements. But the big change, I think,
which will be happening in the next few years, is the European
Union Directive which, I think I am right in saying, will make
compulsory retirement at any age illegal as from the end of 2006.
And this is going to require the whole of the public service,
and not just the Foreign Office, to reconsider present retirement
ages and about the management of its staff.
Chairman: I am aware that this is a fairly
technical matter; also I am aware that there is a division coming
up very shortly. I think it would be helpful for the Committee
if a note were to be produced, and perhaps we can explore it at
the next meeting[11]
Q107 Sir John Stanley: Can I just
ask, Sir Michael, one of the allegations made by the British-American
Chamber of Commerce is that they say, as far as we can ascertain,
no cost/benefit analysis of the San Francisco transaction has
been carried out. Could you give us a note to say whether or not
that is the case, and if the cost/benefit analysis was carried
out could you provide us with a copy of it so we can see whether
the predictions of the cost/benefits are fulfilled in practice?
Sir Michael Jay: Certainly[12]
Sir John Stanley: Thank you.
Q108 Chairman: Good; that will be
helpful. I would like to call this meeting to a close and express
my thanks to you and to your team. We look forward to a sheaf
of notes, preparing us for next year's meeting on this topic.
Sir Michael Jay: Thank you very
much, Mr Chairman. Could I offer you one other note perhaps on
the subject which we did not get to, which is the management of
local staff[13]It
is something to which I attach personally a huge amount of importance.
Chairman: Yes. Actually, what we intend to do
is submit a series of questions which inform the basis of your
note. Very many thanks.
10 Ev 89 Back
11
Ev 89 Back
12
Ev 88 Back
13
Ev 89 Back
|
