Appendices
Letter from the Chairman of the Committee to the
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, dated
13 May 2008
Parliamentary scrutiny of diplomatic appointments
At its last meeting, the Foreign Affairs Committee
considered the Government's reply to the Public Administration
Select Committee's recent report on Parliament and public appointments:
Pre-appointment hearings by select committees (published as
PASC's Sixth Special Report of Session 2007-08, HC 515).
The Committee was concerned to note the following
response by the Government to a recommendation by PASC:
There is one other circumstance in which pre-appointment
hearings should be introduced. Occasionally, Ministers have made
public appointments without following the usual processes, where
normal practice and the public expectation are that these appointments
will be made on merit. The most common examples are appointments
to the Diplomatic Service, often of former Members of Parliament.
Such appointments may occasionally be appropriate, but they deserve
to be tested in public by a cross-party committee. There is a
strong argument for requiring a pre-appointment hearing—even
a binding hearing—in such cases. (Paragraph 43)
The Government does not agree.
The Government is introducing pre-appointment
hearings to strengthen the role of Parliament in the appointment
of people to posts in which there is a strong public interest
either because of the role played in holding the Executive to
account or because of the powers exercised in protecting the public's
rights and interests. The appointments referred to do not fall
within this category. The Government does not consider it appropriate
for Parliament to be involved in these appointments.
In its report on The Work of the Committee in
2007, the Foreign Affairs Committee stated that:
We have previously announced our intention of
scrutinising any major diplomatic or consular appointment of a
person from outside the diplomatic service. In our last annual
report we noted that the only such appointments to be made in
recent years were made during the period when there was no Committee
in existence, at the time of the 2005 general election. As the
appointments were faits accomplis by the time the Committee
was nominated, we did not hold hearings with the individuals concerned.
However, in August 2007, the Government announced that it intended
to appoint Scottish Labour leader and former First Minister Jack
McConnell MSP as British High Commissioner to Malawi when the
current High Commissioner's posting ends in 2009. We plan to hold
an evidence session with Mr McConnell in March 2008. (Fourth Report
of Session 2007-08, HC 287, para 55)
The Committee subsequently proposed to the Liaison
Committee that the Government should amend its list of appointments
which will routinely be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny (as
appended to Ed Miliband's letter of 23 January to Alan Williams)
to include "any major diplomatic or consular appointment
of a person from outside the diplomatic service". The Liaison
Committee supported this proposal in its recent report on this
subject, to which the Government has not yet replied. (First Report
of Session 2007-08, HC 384, paras 11 and 16)
On 23 April we took oral evidence from Mr McConnell
about his proposed appointment. We intend shortly to issue a report
giving our conclusions on this matter.
The Committee has instructed me to write to you to
make clear that it is for the Committee itself, not the Government,
to decide from whom it chooses to take evidence; and that it continues
to regard the scrutiny of appointments of non-diplomats to diplomatic
posts as a matter which is undeniably within its area of interest
and responsibility and which is deserving of public and parliamentary
scrutiny.
We are particularly concerned that if this category
of appointments were to be omitted from the Government's list,
that decision might be taken as a signal to civil servants or
prospective appointees to be unco-operative with the FAC in respect
of future evidence sessions such as that with Mr McConnell. It
would be very unfortunate if a government initiative aimed at
strengthening Parliament's ability to scrutinise the Executive
were to be implemented in a way that might be interpreted in some
quarters as inhibiting Parliament's previously existing rights
of scrutiny.
We therefore hope that you will give urgent consideration
to reviewing the Government's approach to this matter.
Mike Gapes MP
Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee
Email from the Clerk of the Committee to the Parliamentary
Relations Team, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dated 23 October
2008
As I indicated in our conversation earlier, the FAC
at its meeting yesterday discussed the Government reply to its
Report on the proposed appointment of Jack McConnell MSP as High
Commissioner to Malawi.
The Committee decided:
a) to publish the Government's reply (i.e. the
Foreign Secretary's letter of 24 July and Sir Peter Ricketts'
letter of 13 October) in the form of a Special Report; this will
be agreed at next Wednesday's meeting of the Committee and published
shortly thereafter;
b) to request further written evidence from Sir
Peter in advance of the Committee's evidence session with him
next Wednesday. This should consist of a response to the following
questions:
1. Is Mr McConnell's appointment as High Commissioner
to Malawi "on hold" till his appointment as the Prime
Minister's special representative on conflict prevention lapses,
or will it not be proceeded with at all?
2. When was the decision taken that Mr McConnell
will not be the next High Commissioner to Malawi, and when was
he told of this? How was the decision communicated to the government
and people of Malawi? Has there been any adverse criticism of
the decision from Malawian politicians or media?
3. Have any public spending been incurred in
providing training or induction for Mr McConnell in connection
with his anticipated role as High Commissioner, or otherwise incurred
in connection with the proposed appointment?
4. In your letter of 13 October you state that
"the FCO, through our usual procedures, is now seeking to
replace the current High Commissioner when his tour ends in 2009".
On what date will his tour end? Has he been asked to continue
in post longer than planned in order to allow time for the "usual
procedures" to be carried out? When will the new High Commissioner
take up his/her post? Will there be any deviation or derogation
from the "usual procedures" as a consequence of the
need to have a new High Commissioner in post without undue delay?
5. What is the expected duration of the posting
of the new High Commissioner? Is this expected to terminate in
2011?
The Committee would regard it as very helpful to
have responses to these questions in advance of the evidence session.
Email from the Parliamentary Relations Team, Foreign
and Commonwealth Office to the Clerk of the Committee, dated 27
October 2008
Thank you for your email of 23 October raising questions
on behalf of the FAC regarding the proposed appointment of Jack
McConnell MSP as High Commissioner to Malawi. Our official responses
to your questions, on behalf of Sir Peter Ricketts are:
1. Is Mr McConnell's appointment as High Commissioner
to Malawi "on hold" till his appointment as the Prime
Minister's special representative on conflict prevention lapses,
or will it not be proceeded with at all?
The Prime Minister has expressed the hope that
Mr McConnell might be available to serve in Malawi at a future
date.
2. When was the decision taken that Mr McConnell
will not be the next High Commissioner to Malawi, and when was
he told of this?
The Prime Minister decided during the weekend
of 4/5 October that he wished to appoint Jack McConnell as his
special envoy on conflict resolution mechanisms. Mr McConnell
was informed of the Prime Minister's wish the same weekend. As
a result of this decision, it became clear that Mr McConnell would
not be able to take up his appointment as High Commissioner to
Malawi.
How was the decision communicated to the government
and people of Malawi?
Lord Malloch-Brown personally called the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Joyce Banda. This was followed
up by a letter.
Has there been any adverse criticism of the decision
from Malawian politicians or media?
We are not aware of any adverse criticism. We
have assured the Government of Malawi that we are seeking a new
candidate to replace the current High Commissioner when his tour
ends in 2009.
3. Has any public spending been incurred in providing
training or induction for Mr McConnell in connection with his
anticipated role as High Commissioner, or otherwise incurred in
connection with the proposed appointment?
No. Mr McConnell had not started any training
or induction, although there was some administrative work relating
to the terms and conditions of the appointment.
4. In your letter of 13 October you state that "the
FCO, through our usual procedures, is now seeking to replace the
current High Commissioner when his tour ends in 2009". On
what date will his tour end?
The end of tour date for an Ambassador or High
Commissioner is not fixed to a specific date, although the approximate
date will be March/April 09. A exact date is usually agreed with
the outgoing office holder shortly before their projected end
of tour.
Has he been asked to continue in post longer than
planned in order to allow time for the "usual procedures"
to be carried out?
No.
When will the new High Commissioner take up his/her
post?
We will have a clearer idea when a candidate is
selected.
Will there be any deviation or derogation from the
"usual procedures" as a consequence of the need to have
a new High Commissioner in post without undue delay?
No. The process for selecting a new High Commissioner
is fully in line with normal FCO procedures, which frequently
involve identifying candidates for posts overseas in this sort
of time-scale.
5. What is the expected duration of the posting of
the new High Commissioner? Is this expected to terminate in 2011?
We expect the duration of the appointment to be
2-3 years.
I hope you find these answers helpful.
| 
