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
| 
