Letter to the Committee Specialist from
the Parliamentary Relations Team, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
FCO DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT 2008-09: PETER
RICKETTS' EVIDENCE
SESSION AT
THE FAC: TEN
FOLLOW UP
QUESTIONS
In response to your e-mail request of 18 December
I have the following answers to the questions you raised following
the recent oral evidence session on the FCO Annual Report. Your
original questions are shown in italics.
Q29 What other groups of posts are adopting
the `Nordic Network' model, or considering doing so—in particular
in the Middle East?
Response: We are encouraging the development of regional
networks (of embassies and teams) where it makes sense to do so.
Our 10 posts in the Arabian Peninsula (Doha, Abu Dhabi, Dubai,
Riyadh, Jeddah, Al-Khobar, Muscat, Kuwait, Bahrain and Sana'a)
are starting to work more closely on the delivery of our Departmental
Strategic Objectives (DSOs), particularly regional security issues
and trade and investment work, with a view to creating an Arabian
Peninsula Network this year. As with the Nordic Baltic Network,
each post will remain sovereign within the country to which it
is accredited, and will carry out its bilateral business with
the host government. But a networked approach will integrate the
FCO's resources more effectively, providing the FCO and our Whitehall
partners with better, consolidated advice on policy and other
issues.
Elsewhere, our posts in the Levant, and in North
Africa, are also looking at ways of more closely integrating their
work on strategic policy and operations. Our three posts in the
Indian Ocean (Port Louis, Victoria and a small British Interests
Section in Antananarivo) are operating as a single network, and
our posts in the South Pacific are moving towards a similar model.
The High Commission in Bridgetown acts as a hub for the Eastern
Caribbean. In the Iberian Peninsula and Benelux countries our
consular and trade and investment teams function as networks.
And we have well-established thematic networks for climate change
and economic work in both South America and South East Asia.
In addition, the Europe network is working on developing
a regional approach to the provision of corporate services (Finance,
HR and other support functions) in the Nordic/Baltics, Iberia,
Benelux, Central Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean region.
Q55 Please provide final details of the completion
of the renovation project on the Moscow Residence when you have
them, including the costs (compared to original estimates) and
any implications of the Turkish contractor filing for bankruptcy.
Response: The Committee will recall that the
Moscow Residence is an historic mansion, and housed the Embassy
offices during the Cold War years. It therefore needed comprehensive
and sensitive refurbishment. The building is leased from the Russians
under a reciprocal arrangement that includes their Embassy in
London. The project is now very close to completion and the house
will be ready for occupation by the Ambassador, Dame Anne Pringle,
in February.
We would have liked to have commenced the project
soon after the office moved out in 2000 but funds in our estate
programme could not be stretched to cover it. We did, however,
refurbish the two Wing Blocks of the Residence, for use as staff
accommodation, in 2003 at a cost of £2.7 million. The 2004
cost estimate for refurbishing the main house, prepared for the
outline business case, was £10.6 million, based partly on
experience with the Wing Blocks. The project budget estimate can
be summarised as: £6.0 million for the main contract; £1.1
million for specialist restoration work; £2.7 million for
project management and design consultants; and £0.8 million
contingency fund.
In 2005 we were able to programme funds for
the main project to commence in 2006, and the final business case
was approved by the FCO's Investment Committee in February 2006.
After competitive tendering and a careful assessment of their
competence by our consultant project managers, the main construction
contract, was let to Metis, a large Turkey-based international
contractor with previous experience of historic building refurbishment
in Moscow and a good track record on projects for the US State
Department in the Middle East. Work started in early 2006 and
was due for completion in the spring of 2008. This programme was,
however, critically dependent on keeping external roof and masonry
repairs on schedule, because the extremes of the Russian climate
prevent such operations taking place during the winter. This meant
that there was a high risk that a minor slippage could quickly
translate into a significant delay.
In the event Metis got off to a slow start and
immediately fell behind schedule. They encountered a delay in
securing a licence to work on the historic building. They also
experienced difficulties in engaging specialist local subcontractors
within the budgets they had estimated in their tender. The Metis
delays were compounded by our own difficulties in getting design
approvals from the local historic building authority (the equivalent
of English Heritage), who unexpectedly insisted on approving design
details step by step as work proceeded, adopting a far more stringent
approach than had been the case with the Wing Blocks. It quickly
became apparent that the authorities were insisting on an authentic
historic restoration, rather than just the repair and updating
necessary to provide a functional Residence. In some cases, work
had to be postponed while we negotiated the detail of what was
to be done. These factors, compounded by the harsh climate, quickly
led to a slippage in the completion date. This in turn drove up
the cost because it was the FCO's responsibility to secure the
planning consents and, as a result, we were unable contractually
to hold Metis to the tendered price. We were obliged to grant
them an extension of time to December 2008. Our current estimate
of the final outturn cost is £13.8 million, but we are still
some way from agreeing the final account with Metis and cannot
do so until disputed items are resolved.
Metis applied for protection from their creditors
in September 2009. This was granted on a provisional basis pending
a full hearing, which has yet to take place. Meanwhile, Metis
continue to trade. We are assessing the implication of this with
advice from our own specialist construction legal advisors and
Turkish lawyers.
Q63 Please set out the FCO understanding of
the position regarding the acquisition of diplomatic immunity
by locally engaged staff under the Vienna Convention. How would
the kind of immunity potentially available to locally engaged
staff differ from the "normal" diplomatic immunity enjoyed
by UK-based staff? How would such immunity be conferred? Has the
FCO ever tried to get it conferred or would it consider doing
so? Have the recent experiences of local staff in Russia and Iran
affected FCO thinking on this? Particularly in light of the Committee's
planned visit to the region again in February, it would also be
helpful to receive any updated information you have on whether
the FCO has pressed Israel specifically on the issue of improved
access to the Consulate-General in East Jerusalem for locally
engaged Palestinian staff there.
Response: These issues are governed by the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (VCDR). Immunity is not
conferred as such: under Article 7 of the Convention, the sending
State (in this case, the UK) may freely appoint the members of
staff of its missions. But there is a clear difference in the
way in which the VCDR treats staff appointed from the sending
State and those recruited locally. This means that UK-based diplomatic
agents, once appointed, enjoy immunities and privileges accorded
under Article 31(1) of the VCDR, for example, immunity from the
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State and from its civil
and administrative jurisdiction, subject to limited exceptions.
However, the consent of the receiving State is required in order
to appoint as diplomatic agents any locally-engaged staff who
are nationals or residents of that State and this consent can
be withdrawn at any time under Article 8 of the VCDR. Our locally
engaged staff are either nationals or residents of the receiving
State. It should also be noted that under Article 38 of the VCDR:
(i) locally engaged staff who are accredited as diplomatic agents
enjoy immunity from jurisdiction only in respect of official acts
performed in the exercise of their functions and; (ii) locally-engaged
staff may enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted
by the receiving State. The VCDR therefore gives the receiving
state—Russia or Iran are the examples cited—the right
to withdraw any (limited) immunity afforded to locally-engaged
staff at will. We therefore do not see this as a viable means
of affording any substantive additional protection to our staff
in those countries where relations with the host government are
sometimes strained.
There is no central record on the appointment of
local staff as diplomatic agents as a result of devolution of
responsibility for local staff and accreditation issues to Heads
of Mission overseas. We do not object to Heads of Mission seeking
consent to appoint locally-engaged members of staff as diplomatic
agents when this is appropriate and would not cause further difficulties
for the individuals concerned. But, as explained above, this cannot
be done without the consent of the receiving State. This confirms
the position set out in the reply to Sir John Stanley's parliamentary
question of 21 July 2009. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090721/text/90721w0030.htm£09072269000020
On the issue of improved access to the Consulate-General
in East Jerusalem for locally-engaged Palestinian staff there,
we raise regularly with the Israelis the question of movement
and access, including for West Bank Palestinians to East Jerusalem.
We have pressed the Israelis (unsuccessfully) to allow West Bank
Identity Document-holding LE staff to travel to the UK via Ben
Gurion airport and to ease travel to Jordan via Allenby Bridge;
and to allow the families of two members of staff from Gaza to
leave the Gaza Strip and travel for a break in Jordan.
Q79 How many formal grievances about bullying,
harassment or discrimination have been raised by FCO staff in
2008-09, compared to previous year(s) if possible? Does the FCO
keep any record or figures about cases where an individual raises
a problem but decides not to take it to a formal grievance procedure?
Response: The number of formal grievances raised
by FCO staff for bullying, harassment and discrimination are:
2008 = 16 (9 x bullying, 2 x harassment and
7 x discrimination. NB 1 grievance was for both bullying and discrimination
and 1 was for both bullying and harassment.)
2009 = 5 (4 x bullying and 1 x discrimination)
Previous two years' figures are:
2007 = 3 (3 x bullying, 1 x harassment and 1
x discrimination. NB 1 grievance was for bullying, harassment
and discrimination.)
2006 = 7 (4 x bullying, 2 x harassment and 1
x discrimination)
These figures are for UK-based staff only. We
do not keep central records for locally employed staff.
The FCO does not keep any record or figures
about cases where an individual raises a problem but decides not
to take it to a formal grievance procedure.
Qq87-93, esp 91 It would be helpful to receive
any information the FCO could give us now about the Government's
ideas for the detailed structure and functioning of the European
External Action Service (EEAS), and the detailed procedures it
envisages will operate for the recruitment of UK national staff
into it. For example, how, if at all, will arrangements for UK
secondments into the EEAS differ from those that exist already
for secondments into the EU institutions? How does the FCO plan
to manage the fact that national secondees into the EEAS are likely
to be employed on EU terms and conditions, which will differ from
those of the FCO? Does the FCO envisage that Whitehall staff other
than from the FCO will be seconded into the EEAS, in which case
will each Department handle its secondments separately? Some comment
on the issue of foreign language requirements for the EEAS and
how these might affect UK secondees would also be useful.
Response: The detailed organisation and functioning
of the EEAS will be decided by the Member States by unanimity
on the basis of a recommendation (Decision) from the High Representative.
In December 2009 the European Council agreed that this Decision
should be adopted by the end of April 2010 at the latest. We will
be working closely with the High Representative in supporting
her in the preparation of her draft Decision. The High Representative
will oversee setting up the recruitment process for the EEAS.
A Presidency report for the European Council in October 2009 gave
Member States' views on a number of key issues including that
all the staff in the EEAS should have the same status, including
in senior positions in Brussels and, as appropriate, Union delegations.
Member State secondees should therefore be Temporary Agents, in
order to have the same status within the EEAS as either Council
or Commission fonctionnaires, and—as for Commission and
Council staff seconded to the EEAS—draw their pay and benefits
from the EEAS's central budget.
In the UK's view, appointments to the EEAS should
be based on skills and merit, not nationality. The procedures
should include appropriate evidence of skills and experience,
for example foreign language skills relevant for those serving
in delegations overseas. So, the candidates might not necessarily
need to speak, for example, several Community languages if the
skills required were a thorough knowledge of a particular region
of the world or specific policy issue.
The creation of the EEAS will give us an opportunity
to boost UK secondment numbers and we have a good number of members
of staff who would be keen to go on secondment and who would contribute
effectively to the formulation and delivery of EU external policy.
If they are recruited by the EEAS, they would go on Special Unpaid
Leave (SUPL) and would become part of the EEAS as Temporary Agents.
We expect that the arrangements for UK secondments into the EEAS
will be similar to those that exist already for secondments into
the EU institutions. For example, FCO staff on secondment to the
Council Secretariat are there as Temporary Agents on SUPL from
the FCO. We will need to look into the details of the secondments
to the EEAS as they emerge, but being attached to an EU institution
on SUPL should not mean that UK secondees have any less favourable
terms and conditions to colleagues in the FCO.
We do envisage Whitehall staff other than from
the FCO being seconded into the EEAS at some point. For example
it might make sense for someone from DfID with a particular development
background to be in an EU Delegation in a country where development
assistance plays a key role in the relationship with that country.
How we will handle these secondments needs to be worked through
with the Departments in question but we would expect the FCO EU
Secondments Unit to help with the process in close co-ordination
with those Departments providing secondees. FCO colleagues dealing
with EEAS staffing issues already have close contact with their
key Whitehall counterparts.
At Q46, Keith Luck appeared to say that, as a
result of trying to pass on to other Departments "excluding
the UK Border Agency" the extra costs arising from Sterling
weakness, the FCO had recovered some £37 million. The Committee
would like clarification on why UKBA was excluded.
Response: UKBA is a Home Office organisation.
But UKBA's International Group (IG) aims to have a workforce made
up of 40% Home Office staff, 40% FCO staff and 20% from Other
Government Departments (OGDs).
The figure quoted by Keith Luck is the total
amount forecast to be recovered by the FCO from other Departments,
excluding UKBA, in 2009-10. These are not additional charges relating
to adverse exchange rate movements, but are the total central
charges for overhead costs (such as rent and FCO staff support).
The forecast recovery from UKBA in 2009-10 is £161 million.
Costs directly incurred by the FCO at overseas
posts on behalf of other Departments are passed on to those Departments
at the daily exchange rate and the other Departments therefore
bear the exchange rate risk for these costs. Centrally levied
charges for overheads are not so directly linked to the prevailing
exchange rates and as such the FCO carries some of the risk for
these costs. These charges have not been increased for the reasons
outlined by Keith Luck in the second sentence of his reply at
the evidence session: "But actually they are under the same
sort of financial pressures and are finding it difficult to find
additional resources to cover the exchange rate losses and the
impact of the loss of the OPM that we are suffering as well."
Question: Is the FCO in a position yet to
let the Committee know how it thinks the new FCO governance structures
for public diplomacy are working? How and when does the FCO plan
to assess their effectiveness?
Response: Further to Chris Bryant's letter to
the FAC of 22 October explaining the changes to our public diplomacy
governance, it is still too early to make an authoritative assessment
of the effectiveness of the new arrangements. The Public Diplomacy
Partners group has been meeting on a six-weekly basis, focussing
on key strategic themes of education, sport, science and the economy.
The first meeting of the new Strategic Communications (SC) Forum
chaired by the Foreign Secretary was on 11 January. The principle
of evaluating effectiveness of outcomes and not just input of
activity is well registered and we are applying the lessons learnt
from the PD pilots to our new project-management and capacity-building
programmes. We will further review progress at the next SC Forum
proposed for July 2010 and will report further to the FAC after
that.
Question: At whom is the FCO targeting its
website? How does the FCO plan to measure the effectiveness of
the resources which it is devoting to public communication through
the website and other new media?
Response: The FCO web platform hosts over 250
websites in 40 languages. These websites include the main FCO
website at www.fco.gov.uk, Arabic and Urdu versions of the main
website, the UKvisas website, the FCO Freedom of Information website,
and over 230 Embassy, High Commission and Special Mission websites.
These sites are viewed by 35 million visitors a year (2008-09
statistics).
On an average day:
— about 120,000 visitors come to our sites
and view 700,000 pages.
— 45% of visitors go to the websites of
our Embassies and High Commissions overseas, many of which are
targeted at local-language audiences.
— 30% go to our main website http://www.fco.gov.uk
— 25% go for visa content.
— 10% of all traffic to all our sites is
for travel advice.
— Our off platform sites on YouTube, Flickr,
and Twitter, also attract significant numbers of visitors.
For our main site, www.fco.gov.uk, the majority (about
two-thirds) of visitors come for our "Travel & living
overseas" content. However, on most days, our feature stories
are about the foreign policy issues that make up the bulk of our
work. Increasingly we are publishing these foreign policy features
in real-time, drawing the attention of the global media.
The FCO leads government in measuring the effectiveness
of the resources devoted to its web presence. Our approach is
to measure the effectiveness of:
— individual policy campaigns on the
web, such as our digital support of the G20 London Summit
in April 2009. Uniquely across government we published the results
of our London Summit evaluation: www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/about1/evaluation-kpi/.
We have also published our evaluation of elements of our www.actoncopenhagen.gov.uk
campaign which we would be happy to share.
— our individual web presences,
most of which are hosted by our posts overseas. We measure the
effectiveness of these as as part of our annual Web Review, with
the results published in time for the annual gathering of all
our Heads of Mission. The annual review rewards web presences
that are performing well; shares best practice; identifies common
problems to improve our guidance and training; and tackles performance
issues. Full details are published and can be found at www.digitaldiplomacy.fco.gov.uk/en/guidance/review/.
Question: I'd be grateful if you could confirm
whether we are able to refer to the existence of the new parliamentary
engagement strategy, or whether even its existence remains in
confidence. If we are able to refer to it, the Committee would
be grateful to know what prompted the FCO to develop the strategy
and, again, how and when its effectiveness will be assessed.
Response: We are happy for the Committee to
refer to the new Parliamentary engagement strategy. We developed
it in summer 2009 in order to help FCO staff deliver a better
service to Ministers and Parliament. It involves staff knowing
better how Parliament works and how best to work with it; improving
understanding of our policy in Parliament; and delivering our
Parliamentary business on time and to the highest standard. We
are monitoring the strategy's effectiveness and will review it
for the next Parliament. However, there has already been significant
improvement in our performance in answering PQs on time. In January
2009, just 20% of Written Answers, 15% of Named Day PQs and 34%
of Lords Questions were answered on time. In December, the figures
rose to 89%, 75% and 70% respectively.
We are seeking to measure the strategy's effectiveness
in qualitative terms as well. In particular, we take any comments
or feedback in the course of business by the Committee as being
very important in assessing our progress.
Question: What was the FCO's involvement
in the making of Jim Naughtie's pair of Radio 4 programmes "The
New Art of Diplomacy"?
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p8dzj)
Response: The BBC approached the FCO about an
idea for a documentary on the FCO. We did our best to facilitate
that documentary, not least by giving the production team access
to the work of our Embassy in New Delhi and to the Foreign Office
in London.
I hope you find these responses useful and we
look forward to seeing your report.
19 January 2010
| 
