Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 29 OCTOBER 2008
SIR PETER
RICKETTS KCMG, JAMES
BEVAN AND
KEITH LUCK
Q180 Ms Stuart: When you answered
the Chairman at the beginning, you referred to the synergy of
the home Departments, the Foreign Office becoming the implementer
abroad and the scientific adviser who moves on to a Department
as a result of which you have one missing and you know that you
have to recruit a new person. It may sound a terribly frivolous
question—I have asked it of one of your predecessors, too—but
if you simply implement abroad Government policy that was developed
at home, what is the point of the Foreign Office other than as
a supplier of people?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I welcome
that question, because I do not think that we are that. We are
the main producer of foreign policy and the main adviser on foreign
policy to the Government. That gives us a clear and substantial
area of Government policy that we lead on. We have set out those
four policy priorities in our new strategic refresh: conflict,
counter-terrorism and proliferation, low carbon high growth, and
reform of international institutions. That forms a summary for
European policy. There are other areas in which it makes sense
for the Department that does the domestic policy making to cover
international policy aspects, such as crime and drugs, science
and sustainable development. We do not need to maintain a separate
staff for policy making on those issues in the Foreign Office
because they might duplicate policy. We concentrate on delivering
the policies overseas. Our vision of the Foreign Office is that
there are some classic areas in which we lead the policy making
and there are other areas where it is better that the home Department
looks at international as well as domestic policy making. We then
take on the overseas delivery of the policy. I think that that
is coherent.
Q181 Ms Stuart: Mr. Bevan, you
were appointed as the director of change in the change unit with
the aim of giving joined-upness and logic to change programmes.
An English translation of that would be helpful at some stage.
You were quoted in an interview as saying that you had set yourself
a personal target that by the time of the next review, you wanted
at least 50% of the staff to say that change is well managed.
How are you doing with that?
James Bevan: I will tell you in
two months when we have the results of the survey. You are right.
We do regular surveys of our staff. In the first annual survey
after I took office, which was in December last year, in answer
to the question, "Do you think change is well managed in
the Foreign Office?", 36% of staff said yes. The good news
was that that was 10% up on the figures of the previous year and
8% higher than the central Government average. The bad news is
that it was 36%. In response to the organisation, I said that
when we run the survey in December this year I will set myself
a personal target of 50% of staff saying that change is well managed.
That was very ambitious and I do not want to predict whether we
will get there. I will be disappointed if it is not higher than
36%.
Q182 Ms Stuart: What will you
do if you do not get your 50%?
James Bevan: Keep going and learn
the lessons. One of the benefits of our survey process, which
antedates me, is that we do not treat it simply as a fact-finding
survey. We try to use it as a basis for dialogue with our staff
to find out what motivates them, what they think is working and
what they think is not working. I find that usually they are the
best judges of what is and is not working.
Q183 Mr. Moss: May I come on to
staff management issues? The recent independent cultural audit
that was commissioned by the FCO concluded that "the extent
of the vitriol reserved for operational HR was such that we suggest
that the policies and processes of HR are urgently and thoroughly
audited, alongside the individuals charged with dispensing HR
at a `retail' level". Do you accept that HR is not fit for
purpose, as that observation suggests? Do you intend to carry
out the audit that was recommended by the cultural audit?
Sir Peter Ricketts: No, I do not
accept that our HR is not fit for purpose. There are a lot of
people doing very good work in HR. However, the cultural audit
has shown that there are things that must be improved in the way
that some staff work in HR. We will certainly work on that. I
do not know about your experience, but mine is that the HR function
sometimes gets the blame when it is dispensing decisions and policy
conclusions that staff do not like. That is sometimes the reason
for HR being blamed. It appears from the cultural survey that
there are still problems about the way that some advice is being
given to staff. If that is the case, we need to fix it. I would
not jump from there to say that there is a systemic problem with
our operational HR function.
Q184 Mr. Moss: I read from that
that you will not do the thorough audit that has been recommended.
Sir Peter Ricketts: I am all for
continuing to improve HR functions.
Q185 Mr. Moss: That is not answering
directly. Yes or no—will you do the thorough audit?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I do not plan
to do a thorough audit.
Q186 Mr. Moss: My second question
arises from evidence that is anecdotal, but was given in confidence.
There have been complaints that changes in staff postings are
not always well managed. How are staff usually informed of changes
to their overseas postings? How does the FCO ensure that staff
and their families are not affected by late changes? Do you ever
offer compensation, for example, if individuals lose out financially
because of late changes to overseas postings?
James Bevan: First, the nature
and challenge of the job is changing now. The way the Foreign
Office used to operate was essentially to replicate a static network
around the world. There were some changes, but we were essentially
replicating the same numbers of people doing more of less the
same things in more or less the same places. What we are trying
to do now is much more difficult. We are trying to be much more
flexible in terms of moving people to the places we need them
with the skills we need to do the jobs that we need. That is new.
We are finding it a challenge, but I think it is the right approach.
How are we doing it? Clearly business needs always have to drive
the decisions but we want to execute those decisions with the
maximum sensitivity because we are dealing with people who have
families, interests and concerns. When we began this network shift,
which took some people out of Europe and put them or their jobs
elsewhere, we invited our regional directors to achieve this shift
in their respective regions and made it clear that that was their
job, but we also empowered them to take individual decisions on
specific cases, exercising their own judgment. That meant we sometimes
needed to short-tour people. We regret that but we felt it was
necessary. In other cases we were able to be more flexible to
accommodate their wishes.
Q187 Mr. Moss: And was the question
of compensation ever considered if people had lost out financially?
James Bevan: We sign up to a universal
mobility commitment when we join the diplomatic service. It is
important that we remain committed to that. We try to act sensitively
so that people do not lose significant financial resources that
they might have acquired if they had stayed for a few extra months.
But we are not in the business of compensating people for having
to move them when there is a business driver.
Q188 Mr. Illsley: I think the
case my colleague is referring to is one that was in an internal
publication within the Foreign Office. An individual was told
at a month's notice that his job had been cut and he was not going
to travel. He had booked his travel, given up his flat, made various
arrangements and he lost out considerably as a consequence of
a posting being changed within four weeks. That is not exactly
good planning on anybody's part, is it?
James Bevan: Those things have
happened and they happen sometimes because we suddenly have a
new operational need that we were not able to anticipate and sometimes
because we make mistakes. Organisations do make mistakes. When
they happen, while we do not do compensation in terms of providing
additional money, we would always look to see whether we could
avoid someone suffering financial hardship from a decision that
has affected them in that way.
Q189 Andrew Mackinlay: Sir Peter,
in April 2008 we received allegations about the abuse—the
phrase used was "sexual harassment"—of staff employed
by KBR, which was our defence services provider in our Baghdad
embassy. Coincidentally, there were some subsequent reports in
The Times. We have placed on our website the correspondence
we have had with the Foreign Secretary and your office. But the
Committee is still perplexed by this. We understand that the circumstances
were that your deputy head of mission diligently held an initial
investigation, so full marks to him. He identified the gravity
of these allegations, but then the matter was handed over to KBR's
own management, who held an investigation. Their findings were
that there was no evidence to support the claims of serious sexual
harassment but that some managers had displayed certain inappropriate
behaviour in the workplace, falling short of misconduct. Notwithstanding
that, the people who were the subject of these allegations are
no longer employed by KBR. The people against whom the allegations
were made were suspended, but stayed in the United Kingdom embassy
for some days where, it is alleged, they harassed further and
intimidated witnesses. That is quite a serious allegation. I must
put it to you, Sir Peter, that there has been a serious abdication
by the United Kingdom in what is a very sensitive area. They should
have taken control of this investigation and insulated the people
who allegedly suffered this harassment from the people who, it
is alleged, were the perpetrators. What say you?
Sir Peter Ricketts: Thank you,
Mr. Mackinlay. As you say, you have had two rounds of correspondence
with the Foreign Secretary on this, and you received an extensive
response from him. The first thing I would say is that we would
take any allegation of misconduct and sexual harassment extremely
seriously and I believe that we did. Thank you for acknowledging
that the initial reaction was so rapid. The HM, accompanied by
a serving British police officer who was on the staff of the embassy
at that time, made initial inquiries. They then, quite rightly,
turned it over to KBR. KBR employ these members of staff and,
contractually, they therefore have the responsibility for following
up complaints about the conduct of their staff. They produced
their report; we reviewed it and concluded that it had been thorough
and we accepted the findings of it. When the further allegations
came to light, we held a further review with different members
of staff who, by then, had been posted to the embassy. We again
concluded that there were no grounds to re-open the investigation.
We have absolutely accepted the obligation to insure that everybody
working on the British embassy compound is aware of our policy,
of dignity at work, and of the channels that they can use if they
have allegations to make. But we are satisfied that KBR acted
properly as the employers of these staff.
Q190 Andrew Mackinlay: It was
put to us that the policy document you referred to, about dignity
at work and so forth, was only submitted and circulated after
all this blew up.
Sir Peter Ricketts: I do not know
the facts of that.
Q191 Andrew Mackinlay: It is also
put to us that the so-called independent interpreter in the inquiry
was friendly towards the people against whom the allegations were
made.
Sir Peter Ricketts: You are getting
to a level of detail on which I do not feel confident to comment.
I understand that when we conducted our second review of what
happened, later in 2007, we took account of those issues, including
that at some of the investigations there were independent interpreters
present. All I can rest on is that twice we reviewed the outcome
of the KBR investigations with people who are closer to the detail
than I am. In both cases they concluded that they had been fairly
done and that there was no reason to re-open them.
Q192 Andrew Mackinlay: I think
that they are saying that if there are any future allegations—either
in this mission or elsewhere, comparably—the people should
come to the Head of Mission and that it will not, in future, be
handed over to KBR or its equivalent. Is that correct?
Sir Peter Ricketts: The legal
position is that we have a duty of care for all the staff in our
compound, in terms of their physical safety. As good employers,
we want to make sure that all our staff and contractors are aware
of our policies on discrimination and sexual harassment. But it
remains the obligation of the contractors to manage their staff;
we cannot take on the management of their staff.
Q193 Andrew Mackinlay: Sir Peter,
this is not a normal situation, is it? First, I do not have to
spell out to you the cultural issues involved with somebody who
has been sexually harassed. In the United Kingdom, it is a serious,
grave matter. In a conflict or a potential war zone, where cultural
issues are even more imperative, it is breathtaking that one cannot
see this. In any event, there must be international law, and if
there is truth in the allegations, this is sailing very close
to the wind regarding conflict with international law. I find
it amazing that there has not been sufficient regard for the gravity
of the situation—politically, legally and by the employer.
I understand that they were contracted by the firm, but we are
hiring the firm.
Sir Peter Ricketts: We take any
allegations extremely seriously. The Foreign Secretary's two letters
to the Committee show that he personally looked into this matter
carefully and that he takes it very seriously. When we use contractors,
they have obligations involving the management and employment
of their staff. We recognise that we must ensure that everybody
who works for us—including our contractors—understands
our policies on sexual harassment and misconduct. We must ensure
that KBR understands that clearly; I believe that it does.
Chairman: We might pursue this matter
again, but let us now move on.
Q194 Sir John Stanley: Sir Peter,
as you know, on 23 April, Mr. Jack McConnell, a Member of the
Scottish Parliament, came in front of this Committee for scrutiny
prior to taking up his proposed appointment as High Commissioner
to Malawi on 1 February 2009.[4]
Can you tell us why Mr. McConnell subsequently decided that he
would not take up his post? Was he told that he could not take
it up?
Sir Peter Ricketts: Sir John,
I think that you will have to ask Mr. McConnell about his motivations.
My understanding is that the Prime Minister offered him the appointment
of special representative on conflict over the weekend of the
reshuffle on 4 and 5 October. Mr. McConnell accepted that appointment
and therefore could not proceed with his posting as High Commissioner
to Malawi.
Q195 Sir John Stanley: Can you
tell the Committee whether considerations of avoiding a by-election
in the Scottish Parliament formed any part of the change of horses?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I cannot,
Sir John.
Q196 Sir John Stanley: Can you
tell us when Mr. McConnell will take up his appointment as special
envoy on conflict resolution mechanisms?
Sir Peter Ricketts: He has taken
it up. He has been into the FCO and has had initial briefings
with his staff. It is an unpaid appointment, but he has begun
discussions with officials in that role.
Q197 Sir John Stanley: When Mr.
McConnell came before the Committee, I asked him specifically
about his expectation of how much longer he would continue as
a Member of the Scottish Parliament. He replied, "When we
have an agreed starting date, I anticipate leaving the Scottish
Parliament a few months before I am due to start in Malawi."
Why is Mr. McConnell still a member of the Scottish Parliament?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I cannot answer
that question, Sir John.
Q198 Sir John Stanley: Does Mr.
McConnell report to the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary?
Sir Peter Ricketts: He is the
Prime Minister's special envoy.
Q199 Sir John Stanley: So there
is no reporting line to the Foreign Secretary or to your Department?
Sir Peter Ricketts: He is based
in our Department in this role and we will support him. He certainly
has a reporting line to the Foreign Secretary, but I understand
that the appointment was as a prime ministerial special envoy.
4 HC (2007-08) 507 Back
| 
