Letter to the Second Clerk of the Committee
from the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department, Foreign
and Commonwealth, 28 April 2004
SPRING SUPPLEMENTARY
ESTIMATE 2003-04
Thank you for your letter of 16 March in which
you ask for further information on the Spring Supplementary Estimate
submitted to Parliament by the FCO. I am now writing to provide
the details you requested. For ease of reference, the text of
each question set out in your letter is repeated below together
with our answer.
(i)
"further details of the Biometrics Trials
being conducted by UK Visas, in conjunction with the Home Office
(RfR1: Subheads Al and A7)"—The
funds voted for Biometrics Trials are intended to defray the costs
of trial projects for the collection of biometric data from visa
applicants, to improve the security of the system. These projects
include finger-printing of visa applicants in Sri Lanka (£304,875),
and at East African Posts (£306,695) and the commencement
of a wider study of the overall impact of biometrics on the FCO/Home
Office visa operation (£250,000).
(ii)
"a breakdown of the £36.9 million, `in
respect of Iraq-related security costs', details of the original
allocation for this item in the Main Estimates and reasons for
the increase (RfR1: Subheads Al and A 7)"—The
£36.9 million in respect of increased Iraq-related security
costs breaks down as follows:
Armed Protection for UK staff serving in Iraq:
£24.9 million.
Vehicles (armoured and soft-skinned): £7.6
million.
Running costs, including security, of the office
of the UK Special Representative to Iraq: £1.5 million.
Secure accommodation: £2.0 million.
Guarding premises of former British Embassy,
Baghdad: £0.9 million.
The FCO Main Estimate contained no specific
allocation for this activity, so it was partly funded from the
FCO's Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP). The latter alone
proved insufficient to defray the costs of meeting our duty of
care to staff as the security situation deteriorated and numbers
of personnel in Iraq rose.
(iii)
"an explanation of what, `a transfer to Section
A of £J,S15,000 from RfR2 Section B in respect of baseline
repatriation to departments. (RIR1: Subhead A2),' means in practice"—Following
the creation of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) in
SR2000, it became apparent to officials that some of the activities
which had been subsumed into the Pool did not meet the developing
Conflict Prevention criteria. In June 2002, Ministers agreed that
the activities, which remained legitimate activities for Departments
to undertake as a means of delivering other PSA targets, should
be repatriated to Departments together with their funding provisions.
This particular transfer of £1,515,000 ensured continued
funding in 2003-04 for ongoing FCO activity that was no longer
appropriate to the GCPP.
(iv)
"details of the `Hamilton Project' (RfR1:
Subhead A2),"—The "Hamilton
Project" is a programme of assistance to the Turks &
Caicos Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat and Anguilla.
The programme, organised by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
on behalf of the FCO, aims to establish a self-reliant and self-sustaining
shipping survey and inspection regime in each of these Overseas
Territories. Such a regime will ensure that the Territories' safety
standards for ships, crew and pollution prevention are in line
with standards set and enforced by the UK. The Hamilton Project
is due for completion in March 2005.
(v)
"details of the PES transfer from Sections
C and D to the Ministry of Defence of £1.8 million and £1.2
million respectively, to `reflect funding revisions for CP' (RfR2:
Subhead C3)"—Activity and expenditure
under the Conflict Prevention Pools is undertaken jointly by FCO,
MOD and DFID. As manager of the Peacekeeping side of the Pools,
the FCO organises Departmental funding through the Main and Supplementary
Estimates according to agreed programmes of activity. Pool partners
agreed that MOD would be responsible for new peacekeeping activity
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Operation Artemis) and
FYR Macedonia (UFYROM), necessitating transfers of £1.8 million
and £1.2 million respectively.
(vi)
"information on the reduction of £565,000
in British Council Grant-in-Aid (shown at RfR1—F, page 218,
but of which there appears to be no explanation in the introduction),
in particular the reasons for this change and details of to where
the resources have been re-allocated."—The
British Council Grant-in-Aid was reduced to reflect the effect
of the Overseas Price Movement mechanism (OPM) on the Council's
overall budget. OPM is an agreement between the FCO and HM Treasury
that safeguards the Department's overseas spending power against
exchange rate movements and increases in overseas inflation rates,
when the latter exceed UK inflation. By extension, and with Treasury
agreement, OPM also applies to the FCO's contribution towards
the British Council's budget. Where spending power is eroded by
exchange rates variation or inflation HM Treasury makes good the
shortfall in the Department's budget. Where sterling exchange
rate gains or relative deflation produce windfall gains, as here,
the Department returns funds (in this case £565,000) to HM
Treasury.
Matthew Hamlyn
Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
28 April 2004
|
