Relations
with Parliament
16. In a Report on the work it undertook in 2004,
the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Parliament made the
following comment on its relationship with the FCO:
Although we appreciate the FCO's willingness
to share some types of classified information with us, we are
concerned, first, that information provided to us is too often
given an unnecessary classification and, second, that by receiving
such information we as a committee of Parliament are drawn inside
the web of secrecy, which may inhibit our ability to scrutinise
areas of policy from outside. The second of these concerns is
for us as a Committee to deal with: we may have to decide not
to accept a paper if we feel that it will compromise our independence
from the executive. The first concern, however, is one which we
have raised with the FCO, as is evident from the published exchanges
between Committee and Department concerning the provision of information
on asset sales. We hope that the eventually satisfactory outcome
of those exchanges will inform the FCO's wider policy on provision
of information to the Committee, and lead it to question both
the need for and the utility of security and other classifications
on a case by case basis.[17]
The Committee appointed after the 2005 election looked
forward to a time of greater openness by the FCO and of improved
access to information.
17. Things did not get off to a good start when shortly
after our first meeting in July 2005 news filtered through to
Parliament of the content of a consultants' report on efficiency
and effectiveness in the FCO. The fact that Collinson Grant Ltd
were carrying out such a study had been referred to in the FCO's
Departmental Report, published the previous month, where it was
described as
[…] a process activity analysis of the FCO's
operations and a comparative analysis of the expenditure across
the organisation as a whole to help ensure that savings are made
through genuine improvements in efficiency rather than through
cuts in the budget.[18]
When this was written, the FCO had already been in
possession of Collinson Grant's report for some months.[19]
However, it was only when a member of this Committee learned something
of the contents of the report that Ministers accepted Parliament
had a right to be informed. The report was placed in the House
of Commons Library as the House rose for the Summer recess in
July.
18. We find it disappointing that the body which
Parliament has charged with examining the administration, policy
and expenditure of the FCO should not have been supplied with
a copy of a report entitled Efficiency, effectiveness and the
control of costs in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Bearing
in mind what our predecessor Committee said in 2004, it seems
to us that the FCO's failure to disclose the existence, let alone
the contents of such a key document, was a desire to avoid proper
scrutiny by Parliament. Such an attitude is wholly unacceptable.
19. If the failure to share the Collinson Grant report
with us had been an isolated incident, it would still have been
viewed as a serious lapse. Unfortunately, it was not a one-off.
We have just heard of the existence of the Hogarth Report, another
report commissioned by the Foreign Secretary into the running
of the FCO. We are now seeking access to this. In June 2005, the
FCO Board received a further report from a senior manager in the
FCO, Norman Ling, who had been commissioned by them to draw lessons
from the experience of introducing the new Prism information management
system. We discuss the Ling report in the next chapter, but for
the purposes of this discussion we note that Mr Ling found that
the Prism project had been badly mismanaged by the FCO: there
was poor planning; support was inadequate; risks were understated;
benefits were exaggerated; professional skills were lacking; the
Board itself had been insufficiently engaged; security requirements
had handicapped the project.[20]
20. Commendably, the Board placed a summary of the
Ling report on the FCO intranet, where it could be viewed by most
FCO staff, many of whom had been expressing strong dissatisfaction
with Prism. Reference was then made to the availability of the
Ling report in a FCO staff magazine which we routinely receive.[21]
It was only this chance reference which alerted us to the existence
of a document which was obviously going to be highly relevant
to our scrutiny function. Again, we find this very unsatisfactory.
In November 2003, the Committee had asked the FCO to publish the
lessons learned from a previous failed ICT project, Focus.[22]
The FCO knew very well of our interest in these matters.
21. In response to our initial request, the FCO supplied
us with a copy of the Ling report in confidence, although most
of it was unclassified. We wrote to the FCO, asking them to publish
the unclassified summary of the report.[23]
This they have now done, and the report summary is available on
the FCO website, together with a full list of its unclassified
recommendations.[24]
22. Following these failures, we asked the FCO to
tell us what criteria it uses when deciding whether to volunteer
a document to the Committee. We were somewhat surprised to be
told that there have been no such criteria.[25]
The FCO asserted that it always seeks to ensure that it takes
into account the need to keep this Committee informed of its work.
Clearly, either this procedure was not followed in relation to
the Collinson Grant and Ling Reports, or it was followed and the
wrong conclusion was reached. Prompted by our question, the FCO
has now reviewed its approach and will in future expect staff
to consider "proactive disclosure" of documents prepared
for the Board. Sir Michael Jay wrote to us that "The presumption
will be that such information should be volunteered, but we would
always have to take into account personal and commercial confidences,
and any impact on the conduct of international relations."[26]
We welcome this new attitude on the part of the FCO and we will
certainly wish to evaluate how it is working in practice over
the coming months.
23. We conclude that the failure of the FCO to
share with Parliament the reports prepared for its Board by Collinson
Grant Ltd and by Norman Ling is evidence of a disturbing aversion
on the part of FCO management to proper scrutiny of its activities.
Accountability of the executive to Parliament is a fundamental
feature of the United Kingdom's constitution. We therefore welcome
recent undertakings by the FCO to be more open with this Committee
in future; we will evaluate this new policy in the light of experience.
Freedom of Information (FoI)
24. It is, of course, not only to Parliament but
also to the public that government departments are accountable.
One aspect of this accountability was codified in the Freedom
of Information Act 2000. The Act came into force on 1 January
2005 and this is our first opportunity to comment on the FCO's
response to what Parliament intended to be a new era of openness.
25. We asked the FCO for statistical information
on its handling of requests made under the provisions of the Freedom
of Information Act. They told us that in the period 1 January
to 30 September 2005, the FCO received 1,059 requests under the
Act.[27] Of the cases
where the request was not met in full and the inquirer appealed
to the FCO, 58 refusals were upheld, seven were partially overturned
and three were overturned. Six cases were referred to the Information
Commissioner, none of which was overturned. Statistics maintained
and published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs show
that among Whitehall departments, the FCO is one of the best performers
at providing a timely response, but that it grants a lesser proportion
of requests in full than any department except the Scotland Office
and the Treasury.[28]
This could be seen as confirmation of the culture of secrecy in
the FCO or it may be simply a reflection of the number of secrets
the FCO legitimately holds.
26. We congratulate the Foreign Office on being
one of the better departments at dealing with freedom of information
requests in a timely manner, but we are concerned that the FCO
is also one of the departments most likely to withhold information
from enquirers. We recommend that in its response to this Report
the FCO publish a statistical analysis of its handling of FoI
requests, showing the grounds on which requests were not met or
were only partially met.
CLASSIFIED PSA SCORECARDS
27. As we have previously acknowledged, much of the
information held by the FCO is necessarily classified, in accordance
with criteria and procedures which apply across government. We
were concerned, however, to note how many of the 'scorecards'
against which the FCO's performance is assessed are classified.
These include performance indicators relating to the Millennium
Development Goals and other areas of policy which might be regarded
as being of very legitimate public interest, where publication
might be made without compromising security. We asked the FCO
to comment on this.
28. In his reply, Sir Michael Jay told us that some
of the scorecards contain sensitive information, which, if made
public, would risk damaging the United Kingdom's international
relations. He also referred to the need to ensure that the United
Kingdom's negotiating positions are not prematurely disclosed,
because that "would risk getting a worse deal for the UK
in the future."[29]
Sir Michael confirmed that it was this latter consideration which
had led to the Millennium Development Goals PSA scorecard being
classified. He agreed, however, to declassify the scorecard, because
the danger to the United Kingdom's negotiating position had diminished
over time. We welcome this step.
29. We accept that where there are good reasons
for PSA scorecards to be classified according to the usual criteria,
they should not be published, but we recommend that the classification
of such scorecards be reviewed regularly, with a view to timely
publication where possible. In cases where classification of scorecards
remains essential, we recommend that consideration be given to
publishing a declassified summary.
17 Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session
2004-05, The Work of the Committee in 2004, HC 112, para
54 Back
18
Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office Departmental Report 1 April 2004-31 March 2005, Cm
6533, June 2005, p 198 Back
19
The report is dated 14 January 2005; see also HC Deb, 12 September
2005, col 2402W Back
20
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Prism Lessons Learned,
available at www.fco.gov.uk Back
21
Connect, September 2005, p 2 Back
22
Foreign Affairs Committee ,Twelfth Report of Session 2002-03,
Foreign and Commonwealth Annual Report 2003, HC 859, para
45 Back
23
Ev 44, 52 Back
24
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Prism Lessons Learned,
available at www.fco.gov.uk Back
25
Ev 44, 52 Back
26
Ibid Back
27
Ev 51 Back
28
Department for Constitutional Affairs, Freedom of Information
Act 2000, Statistics on Implementation in Central Government,
available at www.foi.gov.uk Back
29
Ev 51 Back
