Letter to the Second Clerk of the Committee
from the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department, Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, 28 May 2004
Thank you for your letter of 29 April with the
Committee's follow-up questions to the Government's Response to
the Committee's Report on last year's FCO Annual Report (Cm 6107).
The answers are as follows:
British presence in Kyrgyzstan (para 41):
Which other states have a resident ambassador
in Bishkek?
China, Germany, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Pakistan,
Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine, United States and Uzbekistan
have resident Ambassadors in Bishkek. Belarus currently has a
Chargé d'Affaires.
DfID has an office in Bishkek and we are deploying
a locally engaged member of staff from our Embassy in Almaty to
represent our interests on the ground. Otherwise Kyrgyzstan is
covered from Kazakhstan, from where our Ambassador in Almaty (a
four-hour drive) is accredited. We believe that, at present, this
level of representation is appropriate.
We have no current plans to increase the level
of our representation in Kyrgyzstan. Opening an Embassy remains
a long-term goal, but we have to take into account the limits
on our resources and priorities elsewhere.
In which other states, recognized by the
United Kingdom, is there no resident British ambassador or high
commissioner?
|
| Country with non-resident accreditation |
Staff or form of representation
in country with non-resident accreditation
| Place of residence of
accredited ambassador
|
|
| Andorra | Honorary Consul |
Madrid, Spain |
| Antigua & Barbuda | 2 UK-based
| Bridgetown, Barbados |
| Benin | Honorary Consul |
Abuja, Nigeria |
| Burkina | Honorary Consul |
Abidjan, Ivory Coast |
| Burundi | 1 LE staff | Kigali, Rwanda
|
| Cape Verde | Honorary Consul
| Dakar, Senegal |
| Central African Republic |
| Yaounde, Cameroon |
| Chad | Honorary Consul |
Yaounde, Cameroon |
| Comoros | | Atananarivo, Madagascar
|
| Congo | Honorary Consul |
Kinshasa, DRC |
| Djibouti | Honorary Consul |
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia |
| Dominica | Honorary Consul |
Bridgetown, Barbados |
| Equatorial Guinea | 1 LE staff
| Yaounde, Cameroon |
El Salvador
(embassy closed July 2003)
| Temporary LE staff in Spanish Embassy. HC to be appointed.
| Guatemala City, Guatemala |
| Gabon | Honorary Consul |
Yaounde, Cameroon |
| Grenada | 1 UK-based and LE staff
| Bridgetown, Barbados |
| Guinea Bissau | Honorary Consul
| Dakar, Senegal |
| Haiti | 1 LE staff | Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
|
Honduras
(embassy closed December 2003)
| Temporary LE staff in DfID office. HC to be appointed.
| Guatemala City, Guatemala |
| Kyrgyzstan | 1 LE staff* |
Almaty, Kazakhstan |
| Kiribati | 1 LE staff | Suva, Fiji
|
| Kyrgyzstan | 1 LE staff |
Almaty, Kazakhstan |
| Laos | British Trade Officers
| Bangkok, Thailand |
| Liberia** | Implant in US Embassy
| Implant in US Embassy |
| Liechtenstein | | Berne, Switzerland
|
| Maldives | Honorary Consul |
Colombo, Sri Lanka |
| Mali | 1 LE staff | Dakar, Senegal
|
| Marshall Islands | | Suva, Fiji
|
| Mauritania | Honorary Consul
| Rabat, Morocco |
| Micronesia | | Suva, Fiji
|
| Monaco | Honorary Consul |
Marseille, France |
| Nauru | | Suva, Fiji
|
Nicaragua
(embassy closed March 2004) |
LE staff. HC to be appointed. | San Jose, Costa Rica
|
| Niger | Honorary Consul |
Abidjan, Ivory Coast |
| Palau | | Suva, Fiji
|
| Samoa | Honorary Consul |
Wellington, New Zealand |
| San Marino | Honorary Consul
| Rome, Italy |
| Sao Tome & Principe | Honorary Consul
| Luanda, Angola |
| St Kitts & Nevis | Honorary Consul
| Bridgetown, Barbados |
| St Lucia | 1 LE Staff | Bridgetown, Barbados
|
| St Vincent & Grenadines | 1 UK-based and LE staff
| Bridgetown, Barbados |
| Surinam | Honorary Consul |
Georgetown, Guyana |
| Togo | Honorary Consul |
Accra, Ghana |
| Tuvalu | | Suva, Fiji
|
|
* To be appointed later in the year
** Technically resident in Liberia but could be removed at
any time.
What criteria are used by the FCO when assessing the level
of representation appropriate to individual countries?
Decisions on the level and nature of UK representation are
based primarily on an assessment of the relative importance of
a country to our national interests, taking into account our requirement
to have a network of posts that gives us influence around the
globe. Decisions are also influenced by a number of other factors
including the availability of FCO resources and the security threats
to UK missions in different countries and our capacity to provide
protection for staff. In making decisions we also take into account
the nature of the work of our post in a given country and whether
our objectives can be met through alternative means of representation
other than fully accredited resident diplomatic staff.
Asset recycling programme (para 79): Members regret that
the Office feels unable to provide the regularly-updated list
of properties the Committee requested in its Report. The Committee
cannot see why there should be practical difficulties in setting
down in writing that which the Office is happy to state orally.
The Committee feels so concerned about this issue—particularly
by the unsystematic manner in which it was made aware of the potential
sale of key properties in Prague and Cape Town—that it believes
it imperative that some mechanism is created whereby it is able
to comment on such sales before a final decision has been made.
It repeats its request, therefore, that the Office provide a list—in
confidence, if necessary—of properties due to be considered
for sale by the Permanent Under-Secretary and his Board, as far
in advance of the relevant meeting as possible, ie before such
decisions are referred to the Secretary of State.
The Committee understands that there may be practical
difficulties owing to the timescale upon which the Office makes
decisions on properties, and is happy to discuss the detail of
its request further. What the Committee wishes to make clear,
however, is that it does not wish to be placed again in the position
where it is having to exercise retrospective scrutiny on a decision
about important assets, without first having had the opportunity
to make its views known at a stage where they could be actively
considered.
We note the Committee's continuing interest in asset sales
and the management of the FCO overseas estate. As the committee
is aware, the programme of asset sales is a requirement on the
FCO: it is also fully consistent with effective management of
the estate.
In the last year the FCO sold 35 properties with an average
sale price of £220,000, as well as a limited number of higher
value properties. Decisions on high profile sales are taken by
the Secretary of State, having been considered by the PUS and
the FCO Board.
The Committee acknowledges the practical difficulties in
providing a list of proposed sales in any six monthly period.
For our part, we recognise the committee's wish to be able to
comment on prospective sales. We repeat our earlier proposal that
a senior official should provide regular oral briefings to the
committee on asset recycling and estate issues. Sir Michael Jay
will be pleased to discuss this further with the committee in
his evidence session on 29 June.
Claim on the Contingency Fund (para 96): The Committee
would like further details of the claim made by the FCO on the
Contingency Fund referred to by the Permanent Under-Secretary
in his oral evidence. How much did the FCO request from the Contingency
Fund? How much did it eventually receive from HM Treasury?
The FCO's FY 2003-04 Main Estimate had no specific provision
to meet our additional activity in Iraq, and the FCO's Unallocated
Provision, our internal reserve, proved insufficient to cover
these costs. The FCO therefore made a series of claims on the
Contingency Reserve in the course of the year. These claims were
negotiated with the Treasury in the face of constantly changing
requirements. For example, we scaled down expenditure on the British
Office in Basra over the course of the year, but were obliged
to spend significantly more than originally planned on security
for the increasing number of staff on duty in Iraq. We are confident
that the total of £36.9 million provided from the Contingency
Reserve was sufficient to meet our requirements and to meet the
duty of care owed to staff operating in difficult circumstances.
Matthew Hamlyn
Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
28 May 2004
|
