Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Second Report


Formal minutes


Wednesday 15 February 2006

Members present:

Mike Gapes, in the Chair
Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Mr Eric Illsley

Andrew Mackinlay

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Sir John Stanlay

Richard Younger-Ross

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report [Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Report 2004-05], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 17 read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 18 to 20 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 21 to 30 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 31 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 32 read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 33 and 34 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 35 and 36 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 37 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 38 to 42 read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Mr Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

We understand that consideration of a successor to Sir Michael Jay as Permanent Under-Secretary is imminent. We urge the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to pay heed to the criticisms of leadership and unwillingness to make changes by senior managers which are detailed in the Collinson Grant report, when the appointment to succeed Sir Michael is determined.

Question, That the paragraph be read a second time, put and negatived.

Paragraphs 43 to 46 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 47 read, amended and agreed to.

A paragraph—(The Chairman)—brought up, read the first and second time, and inserted (now paragraph 48).

Paragraphs 48 to 51 (now paragraphs 49 to 52) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 52 (now paragraph 53) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 53 to 54 (now paragraphs 54 to 55) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 55 (now paragraph 56) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 56 to 65 (now paragraphs 57 to 66) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 66 (now paragraph 67) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 67 (now paragraph 68) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 68 to 70 (now paragraphs 69 to 71) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 71 (now paragraph 72) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 72 to 76 (now paragraphs 73 to 77) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 77 (now paragraph 78) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 79 read, as follows:

The Collinson Grant Report was commissioned by the FCO's Director General (Corporate Affairs), Dickie Stagg. Commenting on the lack of enthusiasm which the process had encountered among some of his colleagues, Mr Stagg told us that "it is inevitable that, if you bring in people who are clearly seen as being something of a threat to the status quo, there are people who are unenthusiastic about that process." Sir Michael Jay, however, assured us that he and his colleagues on the Board took their duty to consider the report's findings "extremely seriously". The FCO told us what it has been doing to implement the report's findings:

    The FCO Board considered the Collinson Grant report at its meeting on 28 January 2005. It re-committed itself to achieving the £87 million target and agreed to incorporate the Collinson Grant work as far as possible into the FCO's existing Efficiency Plan. In addition, based on the findings, the Board agreed to review the Finance function in the FCO, both in London and overseas; identify resources that could be reallocated from low to high priority activity using the Collinson Grant comparative analysis of expenditure; and monitor, at Board level, the FCO's efforts to re-prioritise resources. The Board does not accept that the FCO lacks appropriate political and diplomatic skills.

    Since the Board decisions a number of actions have been taken to deliver the efficiency targets. These include: substituting locally engaged for some UK-based staff; rationalising the various change programmes in the FCO; reducing the number of people in the Corporate pool; improving the workings of the internal market; and reducing administrative costs. Work on the finance function will be taken forward in the light of the Treasury and NAO review …

    The staff reductions, agreed with the Treasury as part of the FCO's Efficiency Plan, are being achieved by adjusting recruitment targets and a programme of early retirement. The FCO is committed to increasing both the skills base of its employees and to better utilising the skills already available, including through active engagement in the Professional Skills in Government initiative. We intend to manage changes in our workforce in ways that will support these policies.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from "process" to "us" and insert "We consider these comments to be, at their best, glib and complacent. It is unacceptable that the Collinson Grant review, or any comparable exercise, should face indifference and in some cases wilful obstruction by senior personnel. Consequently, we take some limited reassurance from Sir Michael Jay, when he told".—(Mr Mackinlay.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 80).

Paragraphs 80 and 81 (now paragraphs 81 and 82) read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Mr Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

We can only conclude from this that Sir Michael is part of the problem. Under his stewardship, the report was originally suppressed. It criticised the management he was supposed to lead. He acquiesced in a situation where some senior managers failed to collaborate with Collinson Grant's proper inquiries. His senior managers did not contest or seek to correct prior to publication errors which they now allege are contained in the Collinson Grant report. When asked what he deems to be "ill founded" in the recommendations of Collinson Grant, he failed to give a specific example. This is all wholly unacceptable from a Permanent Under-Secretary.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Andrew Mackinlay

Mr Greg Pope

Richard Younger-Ross

Noes, 2

Sandra Osborne

Mr Ken Purchase

Paragraph inserted (now paragraph 83).

Paragraph 82 (now paragraph 84) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 83 (now paragraph 85) read, as follows:

We congratulate FCO managers on their decision to invite external consultants to carry out a study of their efficiency, effectiveness and control of costs, although we have concerns about the lack of thoroughness with which the review was carried out and about the lack of seriousness with which the FCO regarded and appears still to regard the project. We conclude that, having commissioned the study, the FCO must deal with it seriously: this suggests that the FCO should change some of its management practices and its efficiency savings targets or it should defend and justify them, explaining where and how the consultants are mistaken in their conclusions. So far, we have seen no evidence that it is succeeding in doing either.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from beginning to "We" in line 5 and insert "We would normally congratulate managers who invite external consultants to carry out a study of their efficiency, effectiveness and control of costs. However, in this case there was clearly a rather arrogant assumption that the consultants would make a positive report about the stewardship and management of the FCO. In the event, the report was very adverse and we can only conclude that there was consequently a deliberate attempt to suppress and hide serious failings in the style, management and stewardship of the FCO".—(Mr Mackinlay.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph 83 (now paragraph 85) agreed to.

Paragraphs 84 to 87 (now paragraphs 86 to 89) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 88 ( now paragraph 90) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 89 to 116 (now paragraphs 91 to 118) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 117 and 118 (now paragraphs 119 and 120) read, amended and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Mr Mackinlay)—brought up, read the first and second time, and inserted (now paragraph 121).

Paragraphs 119 to 135 (now paragraphs 122 to 138) read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Mr Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

In any event, we are not comfortable with the fact that it would appear that Sir Jeremy Greenstock's book may not now be published. We find it hard to countenance that Sir Jeremy would seek to publish anything that would prejudice national security or disadvantage any negotiating position of the United Kingdom. We feel that the publication of his recollections as to the decision-making process or policy formulation towards Iraq (both before the conflict and subsequently) would help to inform public and parliamentary opinion.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Andrew Mackinlay

Sir John Stanley

Richard Younger-Ross

Noes, 4

Mr Eric Illsley

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Paragraph 136 (now paragraph 139) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 137 read, as follows:

Following all this, and in addition to the inquiry being conducted by our colleagues on the Public Administration Select Committee, both the FCO and the Cabinet Office are reviewing the relevant regulations which apply to serving or to former staff. We await the outcomes of those reviews, and the recommendations of our colleagues on the PASC, with considerable interest. Meanwhile, Sir Michael Jay has written to all Ambassadors and High Commissioners, stressing the importance of maintaining the trust and confidence of Ministers.

Amendment proposed, at the end, to add "Whilst we accept that in the interim it is reasonable that former senior officials are encouraged to adhere to the spirit of the voluntary Radcliffe rules, we nevertheless hope that, within those rules, Sir Jeremy's desire to publish could still be accommodated. Consequently, we would urge that further discussions be held between Sir Jeremy and the Government, with a view to reaching some agreement on those matters disclosed in his draft, thereby facilitating publication".—(Mr Mackinlay.)

Question put, that the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Andrew Mackinlay

Sir John Stanley

Richard Younger-Ross

Noes, 4

Mr Eric Illsley

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 140).

Paragraph 138 read, as follows:

We strongly support the decision by Sir Michael Jay to write to Ambassadors and High Commissioners, reminding them of the importance of maintaining the trust and confidence of Ministers. We conclude that the breaking of trust or breaching of confidence on either side is against the best interests of officials and politicians alike and that it can be inimical to the conduct of effective foreign policy.

Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out "strongly".—(Mr Mackinlay.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out from "Ministers" to the end of the paragraph. —(Mr Mackinlay.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

An Amendment made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to (now paragraph 141).

Paragraph 139 (now paragraph 142) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 140 (now paragraph 143) brought up and read, as follows:

A further, if somewhat different case which arose at about the same time was the vacancy for a Head of Mission in the Holy See. In this case, the FCO chose to advertise the appointment last July in the following national newspapers:

  The Economist

  The Guardian and The Guardian Web page

  The Daily Telegraph

  The Independent

  The Times

  The Financial Times

Amendment proposed, at the end, to add "We are concerned that no advertisements were placed in national papers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Ambassadors represent the whole of the United Kingdom. It should not be ignored that for many people the publications listed above can be seen as very London-oriented and 'English'"—(Mr Mackinlay.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Andrew Mackinlay

Sandra Osborne

Sir John Stanley

Richard Younger-Ross

Noes, 2

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Greg Pope

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to (now paragraph 143).

Paragraph 141 brought up and read, as follows:

Sir Michael Jay told us that 120 applications were received for the post. Sir Michael subsequently wrote to our Chairman, informing him that a former diplomat, Mr Francis Campbell, had been successful in the open competition. However, Sir Michael omitted from his letter any reference to the fact that it had already been decided that the new Ambassador should work from offices within the compound of the British Embassy to Italy and that the offices previously used by the Embassy to the Holy See had been closed—according to a newspaper report, in order to reduce costs. Sir Michael later wrote to us, stating that the move was in response to security concerns. He also confirmed that it had been planned to move the Ambassador's residence to within the Rome Embassy compound, but that following representations by the Holy See these plans have been abandoned.

Amendment proposed, at the end, to add "We have not been given any information as to where the newly-appointed Ambassador is to have his residence or about the nature of his accommodation. However, it appears from Sir Michael's letter that the lease on the present, rather prestigious residence has been or shortly will be terminated. We therefore seek reassurance that the status of this post is not being diminished by the downgrading of accommodation as part of a cost-cutting exercise."—(Mr Mackinlay.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2

Andrew Mackinlay

Richard Younger-Ross

Noes, 3

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 144).

A paragraph—(Mr Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

In any event, we have not been given any satisfactory explanation as to why, uniquely, this post was filled by public advertisement. Why was this done? We do not dismiss the possibility that posts could at some time in the future be filled this way. However, the case for altering the existing, traditional appointments system needs to be made to Parliament and should also be subject to extensive consultation with the representative organisations of diplomatic staff.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2

Andrew Mackinlay

Richard Younger-Ross

Noes, 4

Mr Eric Illsley

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

A paragraph—(Mr Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

We recommend that in its response to this Report the FCO provide us with full details of the size and facilities of the new residence of the Ambassador to the Holy See. We also recommend that the FCO supply us with a fully detailed schedule of the type and cost of works and refurbishment carried out at the Embassy to the Holy See and at the Ambassador's residence over the past five years.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2

Andrew Mackinlay

Richard Younger-Ross

Noes, 4

Mr Eric Illsley

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

A paragraph—(Mr Mackinlay)—brought up, read the first and second time, amended and inserted (now paragraph 145).

Paragraphs 142 to 155 (now paragraphs 146 to 159) read and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Second Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.

Several Papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.

Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House.—(The Chairman).

The Committee further deliberated.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 8 March at Two o'clock



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 8 March 2006