House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs First Report

Pre-legislative foreign policy scrutiny

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office generates much less primary or secondary legislation than do most other Departments of State. For the Foreign Affairs Committee, therefore, pre-legislative scrutiny plays a lesser role in its work than is the case with most other departmentally-related select committees. In 2003, this aspect of our work was limited to following up the previous year's Report on the biological weapons green paper, and joining with our colleagues from other committees on the Quadripartite Committee to scrutinise the Government's proposals for secondary legislation on strategic arms export controls.

Fifth Report of Session 2002-03, The Biological Weapons Green Paper (HC 671)

In 2002, we raised a number of concerns about the Government's policies on biological weapons, principally relating to the failure to agree a verification protocol to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and to the voluntary vetting scheme for foreign students in relevant disciplines.[17] In 2003, we pursued the first of these questions in correspondence with the FCO and produced a short Report. The second matter was taken up by our colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee, who made recommendations in their Report on The Scientific Response to Terrorism aimed at strengthening the voluntary scheme.[18]

We believe that the work of the Foreign Affairs and Science and Technology Committees on the voluntary vetting scheme is a good example of synergy between select committees. In particular, we welcome the fact that our colleagues chose to pursue in some detail this matter, which we raised in our Report of last year.

Sixth Report of Session 2002-03, The Government's Proposals for Secondary Legislation under the Export Control Act (HC 620)

Working with our colleagues on the Quadripartite Committee,[19] we also conducted a detailed scrutiny of the Government's proposals for introducing a regulatory system under the Export Control Act 2002. The Committees took oral evidence from NGOs and the Government, and recommended a number of important improvements to the proposals contained in the consultation paper. We identified several areas in which the Government could have been both more positive and less bureaucratic.

The four Committees concluded that the legislation needed to be targeted more effectively towards deterring the irresponsible proliferation of military equipment by British citizens and companies. In particular, they examined closely the extent to which the new regulations should extend to all British citizens, wherever they are operating in the world (extra-territoriality). The Government proposed that only trade in certain long-range missiles and torture equipment, or to an embargoed destination, should be regulated. However, the Committees argued strongly that extra-territorial controls should be applied to all trafficking and brokering activities which, if they were conducted in the UK, would not be granted a licence.[20]

The Quadripartite Committee also recommended that the Government's proposals needed to be more flexible and extend beyond controlling physical exports to other activities, such as electronic communications and brokering. We were very pleased to contribute to the formulation of such key legislation, and will continue to scrutinise the impact of the regulatory system it introduced in the future.

Other scrutiny activities

Our scrutiny of the FCO's expenditure and administration is carried out mainly—but not wholly—as part of our inquiry into its annual Departmental Report.[21] We also ensure that when we visit overseas, we spend some time in the various sections of the Posts concerned, which affords us excellent opportunities to see FCO staff at work and to discuss that work with them informally.

Financial scrutiny

The FCO is not numbered among the 'spending departments', but this does not mean that its expenditure is insignificant. In financial year 2002-03, FCO expenditure (including on the British Council and BBC World Service) was £1,366 million.[22]

Whatever the scale of a department's budget, it is important that resources are accounted for with due regard to economy. In our Report on the FCO's annual Departmental Report for 2003, we noted the Foreign Office's commitment to achieving efficiency savings of 3% per annum in 2003/4 and of 2.5% in 2004/5-2005/6, as agreed with HM Treasury.[23] Sir Michael Jay, the FCO's Permanent Under-Secretary, told us that "inevitably the continued call by the Treasury to achieve significant efficiencies may mean cuts in FCO core activities."[24] In our Report on the FCO Report, we sought further clarification on how the Office will avoid damage to its core activities, and we will continue to monitor very closely the effects of Treasury-imposed efficiency targets.

We have also continued to take an interest in the Treasury's pressure on the FCO to divest itself of what may be regarded under the new resource-based accounting procedures as underperforming assets (such as architecturally or historically distinguished embassy buildings and residences) and to invest part of the proceeds of these sales in new technology and other improvements. In 2003, we requested and obtained from the FCO limited financial data regarding this policy.

We have taken a particular interest in the sale of the Consul General's Residence in San Francisco, and its replacement by a much smaller, far less prestigious building, as part of the asset recycling programme.[25] We were not satisfied that the Office had properly assessed all aspects of the building's value to the UK's diplomatic representation in that city or fully took into account the representations of the British American Chamber of Commerce. As a result we held a further oral evidence session on this specific matter with the key FCO officials involved in the transaction. While the Committee found that the Office had acted with all propriety throughout the process, with due regard to the guidelines set down by HM Treasury, we nevertheless concluded that the sale was another, "deeply regrettable result of the Office's misguided asset recycling programme," and that the sale of the Residence would undoubtedly cause significant damage to British interests in San Francisco.

We remain very concerned that appreciating assets (real estate) are being sold off and that some of the proceeds are being spent on depreciating assets (IT systems). The Foreign Office has yet to succeed in explaining to us how this short-sighted policy makes long-term sense. Until they do, we call on them to cease the practice forthwith.

Scrutiny of the Foreign Office's associated public bodies

The two principal public bodies associated with the Foreign Office are the BBC World Service (BBC WS) and the British Council. We received written evidence from each in 2003, and we maintained our practice of meeting British Council staff and BBC WS journalists when making our overseas visits. We wish to record here our appreciation of the valuable work done by the staffs of both bodies.

Scrutiny of major appointments

Last year, we recorded our intention to scrutinise any appointments to important diplomatic or consular posts of persons from outside the diplomatic service.[26] No such appointments were made in 2003. We remain ready to consider any which might be made in 2004.

Departmental response

The FCO has a generally enviable record in responding to the Committee's Reports within the 2-month period which convention requires. Of ten Government responses to our Reports in 2003, four were made within 2 months; five were made just over that period, for reasons which we accept (for example, because the House was not sitting, or because the Committee was abroad); and one was made very late, for reasons which we do not accept. In all cases, responses were published in the form of Command Papers, a practice which we strongly support.

The response which was made unacceptably late was to our Report on the decision to go to war in Iraq. The Report was published on 7th July, and the response was therefore due on 7th September. That day being a Sunday, we would have expected publication to be delayed by a day or two, but on 3rd September our Chairman received a letter from the Secretary of State, informing him that in the Government's view it would be inappropriate to publish the response before Lord Hutton had concluded his inquiry. We did not challenge this view initially, but when it was clear that the Prime Minister and other Ministers had continued to make public statements on the matters dealt with in the Committee's Report, our Chairman replied to the letter, making the case for publication. On 27th October, the Foreign Secretary relented in part. However, the partial response was not published until a further month had elapsed.[27] In our view, this delay was unnecessary and unhelpful. Relevant correspondence between the Foreign Secretary and our Chairman is appended to this Report.[28]

We recognise that the circumstances in which we carried out our inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq and the ensuing inquiry carried out by Lord Hutton were unique, but we do not accept that the Government was justified in delaying its reply to our Report by eleven weeks. We welcome Ministers' change of heart, but we will not expect such a delay to occur again without our express assent.

Assisting the House

In 2003, six of our Reports were either the subject of debates in the House or in Westminster Hall, or were noted on the Order Paper as being relevant to debates.[29] We welcome the increased opportunities for discussion of select committee reports in the sittings of the House held in Westminster Hall, and will continue to put forward our Reports for such debates.

The future

Of its nature, a report such as this is retrospective. Nonetheless, it also provides an opportunity to set out our intentions for the future. As noted above, we will carry out our regular inquiries into FCO publications, commencing with the 2003 Human Rights Report, and in the Summer looking at the Departmental Report for the period 2003-04. We will also study the Government's new foreign policy strategy, published in December 2003,[30] and we will monitor progress on the FCO's review of its consular services. With the failure of the EU's Inter-Governmental Conference to agree on the future constitution of Europe, we will wish to consider how best to scrutinise the consequences for the United Kingdom. Our inquiry into South Africa will conclude in the first half of 2004. However, we expect our main focus between now and the Summer to remain our work on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism.

17 Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2002-03, The Biological Weapons Green Paper, HC 150 Back

18 Science and Technology Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2002-03, The Scientific Response to Terrorism, HC 415 Back

19 See paras 13-15 above. Back

20 Foreign Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 200203, The Government's proposals for secondary legislation under the Export Control Act, HC 620, para 50 Back

21 See paras 28-29 above. Back

22 Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report 2003, Cm 5913, May 2003, p 22 Back

23 Foreign Affairs Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2002-03, Foreign and Commonwealth Annual Report 2003, HC 859, paras 89-92 Back

24 Ibid., para 91 Back