Letter to the Head, Parliamentary Relations
Team, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, from the Committee Specialist
When he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs
Committee for its inquiry into the FCO's Annual Report on 29 October,
Sir Peter Ricketts agreed to provide further information on a
number of issues.
The issues on which the Committee would like
further information are as follows:
— The "drugs and crime" areas
where there has been a reduction in overall programme spend.
— The issues covered in mid-year reviews
of DSOs and the outcomes of those reviews.
— Clarification as to where there are
currently no FCO Ambassadors or High Commissioners.
— Progress with internal disciplinary
proceedings against Derek Pasquill.
— The FCO's view on compensation for
UK victims of Libyan Semtex.
— FCO expenditure on Commonwealth Scholarships.
At the meeting the Chairman also indicated that
the Committee would write with additional questions that it had
not had time to ask during the evidence session. These are as
follows:
1. Are there any significant differences between
the Corporate Services Programme and the Shared Services Programme?
2. What lessons has the FCO learned from the
mistakes made in the construction of FCO housing in Pakistan?
3. Has any further progress been made on the
possible reacquisition of Glencairn? What estimates are there
of the cost of such a reacquisition?
4. Will the FCO be able to meet its target of
achieving five stars in its finance programme by the end of this
financial year?
5. What is the FCO's current budgetary position?
What plans were made to deal with the Treasury's withdrawal of
support for the Overseas Pricing Mechanism?
6. How are the FCO's value for money projects
progressing? What are the implications of your changes to the
Shared Service programme on your planned efficiency savings in
that area?
7. What progress has been made on UKTI's assumption
of responsibilities for defence trade promotion?
8. Does the new structure of conflict prevention
funding better target long term conflict prevention?
10. What impact has the collection of essays
on public diplomacy published by the FCO had on public diplomacy
work? Was it intended that it should result in changes to the
Public Diplomacy Board's operation?
11. To what extent is there a "gap"
on the ground between the Public Diplomacy Board and public diplomacy
work on the ground?
12. What progress has been made on the rollout
of Future Firecrest?
The Committee would be grateful for a reply
by 24 November.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
7 November 2008
| 
