| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 July 2009 : Column 319WH—continued
The hon. Gentleman then discussed a series of issues relating to what he called lurid headlines in the press, but I think he meant lurid headlines in the Daily Mail; often, when people talk about lurid headlines in the press, those headlines are in the Daily Mail. I think he was referring to the matter that he raised, of whether foreign diplomats are able to claim the cost of business flights and keep the extra money if they do not travel business class. I assure him that that is completely and
utterly not the case. There is a travel package, which is provided to all foreign diplomats. We have to understand that many of the people who work on behalf of the FCO do so in far-flung places, and that family arrangements are much more difficult now than they were 40 years ago when female diplomats had to resign from the Foreign Office when they married. The expectation then was that there would be a man and his wife. Today, our staff are just as likely to be women as men, and a couple may work in two different places. We believe that in the modern working environment it is important to offer staff a sensible, but not disproportionate, package.
The travel package that we provide is an allowance for staff to use for travel on substantive postings overseas—in other words, not just temporary ones. The funds cover the cost of transfer to and from a posting and, on top of that, an annual leave journey to the UK in postings of two years or more. The package gives staff flexibility in how and when they travel during a posting within the ceiling that is fixed by the cost of their official travel entitlements on approved routes and carriers. The maximum that they may spend on travel is therefore the precise amount that the Department would have had to pay to get them to post and back and to bring them home once a year, as happened when flights were booked centrally before the scheme was introduced. There is no amount of money that suddenly goes into a diplomat’s pocket simply because they have not travelled in a particular class. There are fixed routes, but people are allowed to change the route as long as they stay within the amount of money that we have already ascertained would be the best value for them. It is important that we have flexibility, and that system is not disproportionate to what other people would do in other areas of work for which they are required to work away from their home for a substantial period.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said, again dismissively, that management in the FCO was an idea that was rather below the salt. That was a rather de haut en bas comment, suggesting that the FCO has a rather de haut en bas attitude. It may be that in the 1960s and 1970s, despite the considerable effectiveness that the Foreign Office has always had, for which it is renowned around the world, some of our management practices were lax. We have been keen to ensure that we constantly learn how we can improve our management practices. He is right that there are times when individual cases shine light on particular problems that may be endemic across an organisation, but in the brief time in which I have worked at the FCO, it has been my experience that management takes very seriously issues such as how best to manage people to develop change so that we can be the most effective organisation possible, and the most cost-effective organisation possible, and that Ministers are keen to drive those issues forward.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his debate. Some of his comments have been well placed, and I hope that I have been able to reassure him on the issue of whether Mr. Pitman is able to apply for jobs and on the issue of security clearance. I hope, too, that I have reassured him regarding the full and unreserved apology that we have already expressed.
5 pm
Sitting adjournedwithout Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).
| Index | Home Page |