Locally-engaged staff
131. Of the Foreign Office's 16,000 staff approximately
10,000 are locally-engaged, as opposed to being recruited directly
in the United Kingdom.[192]
A number of the FCO's smaller posts around the world are staffed
entirely by locally-engaged employees, and these staff perform
vital roles within the Office.
132. In our Report last year, we highlighted one
issue, related to the employment of locally-engaged staff, which
had been drawn to our attention:
Increasingly, overseas posts are not solely staffed
by members of the Foreign Office. In a number of missions, several
other Government departments are also represented—the Home
Office, the DfID, or the Ministry of Defence (MOD), for example—and
consequently employ local staff in the same way the FCO does (for
example, as interpreters). We have received reports of some difficulties
at posts resulting from this co-location, when locally engaged
staff performing the same function for different departments,
receive different rates of remuneration.[193]
This was confirmed by the FCO, who reported that
some departments, "with greater budgetary flexibility,"
had been able to offer better pay and conditions than the FCO
in order to recruit and retain the staff they needed. We recommended
that the FCO keep us informed of its attempts to prevent other
departments from 'going it alone' in this manner.[194]
133. In its reply to our Report, the FCO told us
that:
Where another government department has an autonomous
presence in a country, it is at liberty to recruit and appoint
its own local staff. In doing so, it is constrained by the same
Treasury delegated authority as our posts: namely to match pay
and conditions to the 'generality' of local practice and otherwise
offer the minimum necessary to recruit, retain and motivate. There
have been some differences of opinion between the FCO and other
departments as to the interpretation of this authority, which
we have sought to address through negotiation between officials
at a senior level. Notwithstanding much goodwill, it remains evident
that other departments, while acknowledging the desirability of
a common approach, on occasion regard the employment package offered
by our posts as inadequate to recruit the personnel they require,
and can afford. They have in consequence offered more attractive
terms.[195]
134. During this year's inquiry, we returned to this
issue. The FCO very helpfully provided us with sample salary comparisons
for India and Lesotho, where the DfID has a separate presence.[196]
These are set out in the table below and, as can be seen, the
differences are not inconsequential (figure 12).
Figure 12: comparative pay rates for FCO
and DfID locally-engaged staff in Lesotho and India (in local
currency)
| |
Grade | FCO rate |
DfID rate (equivalent grade) |
| Lesotho (Maloti) | LEIII Senior Clerical
| M 3,957—6,914 | M 6,835—9,618
|
| | LEIV Junior Clerical
| M 3,651—5,978 | M 4,446—6,256
|
| | LEVA Driver |
M 2,922—5,489 | M 4,446—6,256
|
| India (Rupees) | LEVA Driver
| R 8,553—15,357 | R 15,187—23,955
|
| | LEVB Guard |
R 7,129—13,667 | R 11,869—23,036
|
Source: FCO[197]
135. The FCO stated that:
The variables arise from the different methodologies
employed in determining appropriate rates e.g. use of consultants
(DfID) compared with FCO 'marker' reviews, and the selection of
analogous employers and grade comparators.[198]
This seems to us to put the FCO at a disadvantage
when recruiting and retaining staff, and to risk engendering ill
feeling between staff doing the same job but working for different
departments. It also seems to us to be contrary to the spirit
of HM Treasury's guidelines in this matter and to run the risk
of departments operating overseas competing on unequal terms for
the same staff.
136. We conclude that the continuing practice
of different Government departments offering different pay rates
to locally-engaged staff doing the same jobs is undeniably detrimental
to the work of HM Government as a whole. We recommend that the
Foreign Office raise this matter direct with the Treasury in order
to seek a Government-wide solution to this problem. We further
recommend that, in its response to this Report, the FCO set out
how it intends to take this matter forward.
Specialists versus generalists
137. In the past, an oft-made criticism of the civil
service, including the Foreign Office, has been that it was largely
comprised of generalists, rather than specialists; what was once
described as, "the apotheosis of the dilettante".[199]
When we were taking oral evidence from Sir Michael Jay, we discussed
with him this issue of specialists versus generalists in relation
to wider employment policy. He stated 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 ... 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.[200]
138. We would agree with the latter sentiments. As
the incidents of the Dublin and New York residences, discussed
above, and the problems associated with the implementation of
the FCO's IT strategy have shown, organisations like the Foreign
Office increasingly need staff with specialist knowledge in such
key areas in order to succeed. It is undeniable that there have
been great strides forward in the training and professionalism
of FCO staff over the past decades. However, it is surely part
of the 'old thinking' to consider that the gifted generalist can,
in an ever more specialised world, glide effortlessly from one
area of competence to another.
139. We recommend that, in its response to this
Report, the Foreign Office set out its policy on the recruitment
and employment of specialists to carry out roles requiring more
detailed subject knowledge, such as in the fields of finance,
property and information technology.
184 2004 Spending Review, p 17 Back
185
Ibid., p 20 Back
186
Ev 70 Back
187
UK International Priorities, p 59 Back
188
Ev 49, para 39, and HC Deb, 23 April, col 710W Back
189
Ev 59 Back
190
Mr Anwar Choudhury, High Commissioner to Bangladesh, and Mr Alp
Mehmet MVO, Ambassador to Iceland, both appointed in April 2004. Back
191
Ev 59 Back
192
Departmental Report 2003-04, p 14 Back
193
Foreign Affairs Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2002-03,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003, HC 859, para
82 Back
194
Ibid., para 83 Back
195
FCO, Twelfth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session
2002-03, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2003: Response
of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
Cm 6107, February 2004, para 21 Back
196
Ev 47, para 35 Back
197
Ibid. Back
198
Ibid. Back
199
Thomas Balogh, "The Apotheosis of the Dilettante", Hugh
Thomas (ed.), The Establishment (London, 1959), p 83 ff.
Back
200
Q 163 Back
