Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 179)
TUESDAY 29 JUNE 2004
SIR MICHAEL
JAY KCMG, MR
DICKIE STAGG
CMG, MR SIMON
GASS CMG CVO AND
MR DAVID
WARREN
Q160 Sir John Stanley: Thank you.
Sir Michael Jay: I have no recollection
of seeing it, let me be clear about that.
Q161 Chairman: Sir Michael, the Priorities
document which was published last December, I want to touch on
this before turning to security, does have implications not only
for the assets in the overseas missions but also the staff. It
seems to indicate that increasingly policy making will not be
confined simply to London with the implementation at posts, but
with the new IT it will be much simpler to have a total network
of policy formulation. Can you help on how this will affect the
location of staff and the numbers of staff?
Sir Michael Jay: I think we are
clear, Chairman, that we need to ensure that our resources, both
in London and overseas, are allocated in accordance with the strategic
priorities which ministers have set out in our strategy document.
We are also clear that we are going to be operating over the next
few years under increasing financial constraints, so the issues
which you mention are very central to the departmental change
programme. Your premise is right, I believe that with IT we can
make more use than we have done in the past of the very considerable
expertise we have in overseas posts. Our ambassador in one of
our overseas posts, say our ambassador in Burma, is much better
able than anybody in London to look at the totality of our relationship
with Burma and advise us and advise ministers on how they should
be conducted if, say, a senior minister is visiting London. I
want to use the technology to make more use of that. I think that
the effect of this will be to slim down a little bit some of the
geographical directorates in London in order to avoid the duplication
that there now is between what is being done by our overseas posts
and what is being done by the geographical directorates in London.
That will enable them to be focusing on the core functions of
servicing ministers, focusing on regional issues, managing the
network overseas and, in a sense, empowering our embassies overseas
by giving them a more direct input into the policy formulation.
Q162 Chairman: With overall numbers
that are broadly the same?
Sir Michael Jay: We have not had
the result of SR2004 yet but I suspect the combination of the
SR2004 outturn and the Gershon efficiency proposals that we put
forward will result in some slimming down of our staff over the
next two to three years. The question of avoiding duplication,
of ensuring that our staff are going where they are really needed,
is going to be crucial for us.
Q163 Chairman: Are you proposing
to go further along the road of bringing in specialists? In the
old days the criticism of the Foreign Office was the cult of the
amateur, what some called the apotheosis of the dilettante[14],
that someone who came in with the right intellectual equipment
could turn to any job. Is the problem which Mr Maples mentioned
for example the mistakes made in terms of the estate, due in part
to the assumption that someone with the right intellectual equipment
can take key decisions on property management?
Sir Michael Jay: I think there
are two answers to that, Chairman. The first on specialism is
that I do not recognise the cult of the dilettante when I travel
and see our overseas posts; I see people who are extraordinarily
professional, who have extraordinary language skills and who are
trained in two or three core competences during their career which,
I believe, makes them exceptionally talented and able representatives
of their country. I think that there is specialism even in the
traditional Foreign Office make-up. However, I do believe that
as the business of managing large complex organisations like ours
gets even more difficult we do have to have more professional
expertise, more HR expertise, more IT expertise, more estate expertise.
Q164 Chairman: That is brought in
on contract or in-house training?
Sir Michael Jay: It will depend.
We will need to recruit people who have that expertise who will
become permanently a part of our operation. I suspect that for
some large IT projects we will probably need to have, as we do
at the moment, consultants brought in who have the right kind
of expertise who work closely with our people. I suspect we shall
have some people brought in on short-term assignments. I think
there is going to be a mix of this. On the premise of your question,
do we need more professional expertise in these areas, the answer
is yes.
Q165 Chairman: Does that include
the business community? There were suggestions four or five years
ago of business people becoming ambassadors. We have heard rather
less of that recently. Is that something that you accept there
is a need for, for greater expertise in the commercial world?
Sir Michael Jay: There is a need
for expertise. As far as our ambassadors are concerned, what we
need are the right people for the jobs. That could be business
people. In the past we have had competitions for some senior commercial
jobs overseas, some business people have come . . .
Q166 Chairman: How many are in post
now?
Sir Michael Jay: I do not think
any are in post now.
Q167 Chairman: It has not been very
successful then?
Sir Michael Jay: No. I think there
were two business people who—I think I am right in saying—won
competitions. One left the job fairly shortly after starting and
one declined to take it up having seen what the terms and conditions
were.
Q168 Chairman: What about relations
with the press? Again, it appears to be the assumption that someone
in the course of his career can be the press officer or deal with
that at the Foreign Office end but many departments now bring
in, perhaps on contract, people who know their way around the
press world. Have you thought of that as worthwhile?
Sir Michael Jay: At present the
Foreign Secretary's Press Secretary is indeed brought in from
the world of journalism, and among his staff in our Press Office
there is a mixture of people who have experience of the press
world, who have come from the Government Communication Service,
and also diplomats. What we need to remember is that something
that rather distinguishes the Foreign Office from other government
departments is that almost all our people are going to have to
become involved directly in press work when they are overseas,
operating with the local radio, television, media in foreign languages
themselves, and for that they need training. That is why we need
to ensure that we have Foreign Office people coming steadily through
our Press Office getting the training in public diplomacy skills
that they are going to need to use when they are in post overseas,
as I discovered myself in Paris.
Q169 Chairman: One final question,
before I turn to Mr Chidgey. In your most recent memorandum you
said that the Strategy was not a "camouflage for closures
and cuts" but that you would not want to "underestimate
the pressures the present resource climate places on the FCO."[15]
Is this in effect a cry for help or a warning to us of potential
closures along the road?
Sir Michael Jay: I think it is
a statement of realism, Mr Chairman. None of us want to close
overseas posts; what we want to do is to ensure that we have the
network of posts overseas to maintain the global influence which
Ministers want us to have, and which I think this Committee wants
us to have. What we need to ensure also, however, is that the
posts that we do have are properly resourced with people properly
trained and paid so that they can do the job they need to do.
Whether we are going to be able to maintain the network as it
now is, given the resource constraints, I cannot tell you. As
I mentioned earlier on, in answer to a question from Mr Mackinlay,
there are likely to be some changes over the next few years.
Q170 Andrew Mackinlay: Just on this
narrow point—and I am not talking about the merits of individuals—Alistair
Goodlad and now Helen Liddell have now been earmarked for the
High Commission in Australia.[16]
What is the mechanism? Does the Prime Minister send you a memo
saying, "This is something I want to do, so do not appoint
on this"? How is that ring fenced or anything like that?
It is not a very common thing. We understand that this is clearly
a political decision, a political appointment, but do you wake
up one day and get a memo from the Prime Minister saying, "This
is mine; I am going to make the appointment on this"? How
does it work? I am not talking about the individuals now, the
individual qualities, but what are the ground rules for that?
Sir Michael Jay: There are very
few such appointments in the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign
Secretary has made clear that he foresees there continuing to
be very few such appointments in the Diplomatic Service. Under
all governments, from time to time, Ministers have decided that
there should be an appointment of this kind, and, indeed, yes,
I am essentially informed that this is what Ministers would like
to do with a particular post, and in this particular case I believe
that the choice is somebody who is extremely well qualified to
be our High Commissioner, as, indeed, is her predecessor.
Andrew Mackinlay: Absolutely. One would
hope for nothing less.
Q171 Mr Chidgey: Sir Michael, before
I go on to security, I have a question on the topic of property
sales. Amongst the list of 250 properties you mentioned that either
had been sold or were being considered for sale, can you tell
me where the residence for the High Commissioner in Trinidad stands
on that particular list? Do you have some figures on that?
Sir Michael Jay: I am afraid I
cannot. I have been briefed on a number of properties, but not
on Port of Spain.
Q172 Mr Chidgey: I had the good fortune
to visit Trinidad as part of a Committee a little while ago and
I had the opportunity to see how effective the residence was in
attracting leading dignitaries and leading politicians in the
area to the High Commissioner's reception. So I was very impressed.
However, I was not impressed to hear that the residence was under
review for sale because, as a result of a previous incumbent dividing
one of the rooms into two with a partition, it now had one more
room than that grade of High Commissioner was entitled to. That
was a comment made by a rather junior member of whatever team
it is that does these evaluations, and it rather incensed the
High Commissioner's wife and himself because it was a way he was
not used to being treated, having served many years for the good
of his country. To be told that an extra partition in his residence
disqualified him from it was something he found rather hard to
take. Do you know anything about this and can you tell us what
happened to that residence, or whether we still have that bungalow
in Trinidad and it is still doing the job that it was designed
to do? It does rather reinforce the point about professionalism.
I will leave that with you and move on to security, unless you
would like to respond?
Mr Gass: I cannot tell you specifically
about Port of Spain, but what I would challenge a little is the
idea that a partition in two rooms would have been the difference
between keeping and selling a property, Mr Chidgey; that really
is not the policy, although that may be how a junior member of
staff may have perceived it. In fact we have performance indicators
by which we judge our property. They are actually quite sophisticated;
they consider rental values, sizes certainly, whether the buildings
are in good condition, whether they are fit for purpose. We have
a range of criteria and I would guess that if Port of Spain were
to be sold it would have been judged against those criteria. We
can certainly give you a note on that specific residence.[17]
Q173 Mr Chidgey: You might like to
revisit that and look at the notes of the visit and the report
made by the relatively junior member of staff on their return
to England because that was not the impression that they left
with the residents of that property at the time, who, quite understandably,
in my view, were somewhat incensed by the way they were treated.
Security: may I start with Istanbul? I was one of the Members
of this Committee who were in Istanbul only a fortnight before
the bombing took place and obviously very distressed at the loss
of life, particularly of Roger Short, and we have already passed
our condolences to the staff about that. We recognise, as we all
do, that this was the first time that a British Consulate-General
or embassy had suffered such an attack, and as such was a terrible
shock to the Service. Nevertheless, it is important to know what
progress has been made and, Sir Michael, in your foreword to the
Report you stress that the security of your staff is your greatest
single preoccupation since the attack in Istanbul, and we obviously
understand that. Can you provide us with an update on the current
situation at the Consulate-General in Istanbul?
Sir Michael Jay: Yes, I can, Mr
Chidgey. The works are continuing to restore Pera House. As you
know, it was in the process of being restored after a fire when
the attack happened, and we made the decision that we should continue
with the restoration. Clearly, in the process of restoring it
we are also strengthening the security so that it will be less
vulnerable to any future attack. For example, the perimeter wall
of the Consulate-General has been rebuilt to a standard which
will enable it to withstand a significant bomb blast in the future,
and there is a new blast-resistant gatehouse and entrance to the
Consulate. In fact Pera House itself, as you have seen it, is
well inside the perimeter and has the sort of standoff which makes
it in theory quite secure. What we need to ensure is that the
perimeter walls and the defences are strong enough to withstand
an attack of the kind that it suffered last November, and that
is what we are doing as an essential part of the restoration of
the building.
Q174 Mr Chidgey: I understand
that the local police force and security forces had discussed
with ourselves whether or not the approach roads and the roads
close by the Consulate-General should be closed to general traffic.
I understand that was the case, but there was a question of whether
that gave the wrong impression.
Sir Michael Jay: Do you mean before
the attack?
Q175 Mr Chidgey: Before the attack.
Again, as part of the review of the situation of security, have
there been any measures taken in that regard?
Sir Michael Jay: I am afraid I
do not know exactly where discussions stand with the local authorities
on the closure of roads around Pera House. I would have to look
into that. Certainly there were constant discussions immediately
before the attack in Istanbul with the local authorities, particularly
after the earlier attacks on the synagogue in Istanbul, which
led to stronger security measures being taken, more guards being
put in place. Indeed, there was a security team in place in Istanbul
at the time of the attack, which was putting up CCTV surveillance
systems around the walls.
Q176 Mr Chidgey: It is interesting
in this context of security that the Committee, I think a little
while before, visited Tehran and obviously met with your staff
in the embassy in Iran.[18]
Just after somebody fired some shots at the embassy, if I remember.
The reason I mention that is because it was quite clear, talking
to the staff there, that they were quite shocked by this attack,
and I wondered, within the context of Istanbul, bearing in mind
the severity of the attack that then occurred there, what sort
of long-term support those members of staff in Istanbul have been
given—those who were injured, those who were traumatised,
because these things seem to disappear and what we are interested
to know is how the staff were being cared for?
Sir Michael Jay: Let me assure
you that they do not disappear and we do take our duty of care
to our staff extremely seriously, and that is the thing which
concerns me more than anything else in the job I have at the moment.
That duty of care does not stop on the immediate aftermath of
an attack—it continues afterwards—and there are lessons
we have learnt from this about the sorts of ways in which we need
to protect our staff. Perhaps I could ask the Human Resources
Director, David Warren, to say something in a little more detail
about the measures that we have taken with our staff in Istanbul
as a result of the attack there?
Mr Warren: Mr Chidgey, I can reassure
the Committee that all staff in Istanbul had access to good quality
medical treatment immediately after the incident, including counselling
and with trauma risk assessment. Our welfare officers have been
in close touch, not only with the staff in Istanbul but also with
relatives in the UK of those who were killed, to offer all support.
The Consulate-General initially set up a welfare office, which
was staffed mainly by volunteers, to give support to staff and
family members, and a small support office continues to operate
in Istanbul. Trained staff, as the Committee may know, were sent
to Istanbul within 24 hours to carry out the trauma risk assessments.
It was not possible to cover everybody immediately because of
local security constraints, but a follow-up visit in January of
this year found that the majority of staff were dealing very well
with the after effects of what was obviously a terrible incident.
If I might offer a general comment at this point on this area
of Foreign Office activity to provide welfare support for staff?
It is a matter of great importance to us that we increase the
training of our assessors of the trauma risk to staff and dependents
of incidents of this kind, incidents which are traumatic, by which
I mean primarily terrorist incidents, but not limited to terrorist
incidents—any incident which is likely to traumatise staff—and
we aim to have 60 such assessors trained by next year to be able
to deal with the after effects of incidents of this kind.
Q177 Mr Chidgey: Thank you very much.
May I ask another question on Istanbul before I go further on
security? The reason that we were there in Istanbul was to look
at the entry clearance situation, mainly the issue was the queuing
outside of the Consulate-General. Clearly with the effect of the
terrorist act there this must have been completely stopped. So
where are we now? Have we restored the services?
Sir Michael Jay: Could I ask Dickie
Stagg to answer that question, Chairman?
Mr Stagg: The position at the
moment is that the entry clearance operation is operating from
the Hilton Hotel, from four rooms. They are issuing about 75%
of the normal number of visas, which obviously is a drop on the
rate before last November. We are planning to move back into Pera
House in August or September and that, combined with some strengthening
of the Ankara operation, we believe will get us back to full operation
by the end of the year.
Q178 Mr Chidgey: Thank you. Coming
back to security, Sir Michael, following the attack in Istanbul,
of course, the Foreign Secretary announced an internal review.[19]
He has contacted us this month setting out the results of the
review, which was undertaken by Stuart Jack. You will be familiar
with the findings, I am sure, and I do not intend to re-rehearse
them here, but I would like to know, now that Stuart Jack has
presented his final report on the Foreign Office's Security Strategy,
whether you think his findings strike the right balance between
the need to protect staff whilst maintaining access to the post
for the general public?
Sir Michael Jay: I think they
do, Mr Chidgey; I think that is the fundamental issue for us,
how we do get that balance right between the need to ensure the
security of our staff and the need to be open enough to carry
out our business. This is essentially a question of managing the
risk. We cannot eliminate all risk in the Office but we can try
to manage that risk sensibly, and that is what we are trying to
do, and those are the principles which underlay Stuart Jack's
report. I think the basic philosophy that comes out of that report
is the need to ensure that there are certain basic standards which
we expect to observe in our overseas posts; that we judge those
standards against the vulnerability of the post and, for example,
the extent to which the host government can be expected to ensure
the security of our posts. So in a sense you are making a judgement
in each individual case. What are the standards which are there
now? Are those standards acceptable given the vulnerability of
the post? If they are not we need to strengthen the post in order
to ensure it is properly secure. If we cannot do that we need
to consider moving somewhere else where it will be more secure.
Secondly, of course, if we are building new buildings we need
to make certain that we construct buildings, which also are going
to meet the standards which we are setting ourselves. So it is
essentially a risk management approach.
Q179 Mr Chidgey: That is very interesting,
and it is interesting because one of the things which we are able
to do as a Committee is to draw comparisons between the way that
our own embassies are protected and the way that our colleagues,
allies, whatever, from the United States treat the same problem
in the same location. Of course it is quite clear to us that in
many cases there is a fortress or even bunker mentality in the
approach to security from our American allies in the same location
as an embassy of the United Kingdom, which is clearly not so well
protected. I would be interested to know how those decisions are
made and what sort of co-operation there might be in sharing security
information as to lead to the Americans seeing a risk at one level
and of us seeing it at a somewhat different level.
Sir Michael Jay: We do share information
constantly with the Americans and, indeed, with other allies on
the security of individual posts, but we have to make our own
decisions on the basis of our own philosophy, on the basis of
our own resource of locations as to how we maintain that balance
ourselves. On resources, perhaps I may add one point, if I may,
which is that we have, as part of our bid to the Treasury SR2004
included, as you would expect, quite a big element for security
to ensure the security of our overseas posts. That is not a figure
that we have pulled out of the air, it is based on an assessment
of how secure our posts are around the world, how vulnerable they
are and what we need to invest in them to ensure that they reach
the standard of security which we believe necessary to fulfil
our duty of care. So it is quite a sophisticated approach to risk
management and we hope very much that the Treasury will accept
the arguments.
14 T. Balogh, "The apotheosis of the dilettante",
H. Thomas, The Establishment (London, 1959), pp 83-126 Back
15
Please refer to the letter from Sir Michael Jay, dated 22 June
2004, providing an update on FCO strategy, Ev 76 Back
16
"Helen Liddell to be appointed as the next British High
Commissioner to Australia", FCO press release, 2 April 2004 Back
17
Ev 64 Back
18
For details, see: Foreign Affairs Committee, Third Report of
Session 2003-04, Iran, HC 80. Back
19
HC Deb, 10 December 2003, column 84-86WS Back
|
