Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
100-115)
SIR PETER
RICKETTS KCMG, JAMES
BEVAN AND
KEITH LUCK
9 DECEMBER 2009
Q100 Chairman: Have you also spoken
with the Liberal Democrats?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I haven't,
but I would be very willing to.
Q101 Chairman: The Government
have also appointed a number of people as special representatives
on issues such as climate change, peace-building, Afghanistan
and Pakistan. Does that present any difficulties for you in terms
of the relationship with people within the structure of the Government
and the Department? Is there any difference in the way in which
you behave towards a special representative who has come from
a diplomatic background as opposed to someone who has come from
academia or politics?
Sir Peter Ricketts: There are
different sorts, as you suggest, Mr. Chairman. Some of them are
simply senior officials who are added to the existing structure
to cope with a particular surge in work. For example, Sherard
Cooper-Coles, our special representative to Afghanistan, is simply
one more senior official adding extra capacity in that area. The
politicians, such as Mr. McConnell, Geoff Hoon, who is working
on the NATO strategic concept for us, and Des Browne, who was
doing some work on Sri Lanka, give us specific amounts of time
to do rather targeted things, which normally involve travelling
and overseas representation. They add to our capacity to deal
with particular problems. I don't think we have any particular
problem working with them.
Q102 Chairman: Do they have to
clear what they do with you or with the Foreign Secretary? How
does that work?
Sir Peter Ricketts: The political
special representatives are normally either the Prime Minister's
or the Foreign Secretary's special representative. They effectively
work under the authority of the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary.
In practice, they work closely with officials. For example, if
Jack McConnell is travelling, he usually takes an official with
him. He is therefore an extra multiplier for us in our diplomatic
work overseas.
Q103 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Sir
Peter, you have mentioned some of the special representatives.
We are also told that Mr. John Ashton will be the Foreign Secretary's
special representative for climate change. Another is Rear Admiral
Neil Morisetti, one of the Department's climate and energy security
envoys. You have also appointed a chief scientific adviser and
you already mentioned Geoff Hoon, Mr. McConnell and others. I
find this very confusing. You are under immense budgetary pressure,
you are losing staff abroad and are having to send people on unpaid
leave—and it is getting worse—yet you are taking on
a confused mixture of envoys, some of whom do not report to the
Foreign Secretary, but are based in the Foreign Office. I think
that you are behaving like a giant NGO. Where is the clarity of
purpose? Are you not becoming a sort of dumping ground for unwanted—perhaps
they are wanted, but they're certainly very expensive—personnel,
over whom you rarely have any vestigial control, to solve problems
elsewhere?
Sir Peter Ricketts: Let me reassure
you, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, that such people are effectively senior
officials. John Ashton is a member of the diplomatic service who
had been on secondment or unpaid leave doing climate change work
and came back to us, but is still effectively a senior FCO official,
as is Sherard Cooper-Coles on Afghanistan. The political representatives
are not expensive because we do not pay their salary, we simply
pay their expenses when they travel abroad for us. They provide
some extra capacity, for example for representation at international
conferences or to spend more time in a country than a Minister
could and get into the detail. They therefore provide a valuable
extra resource for us at very little cost, because we simply pay
the additional travelling expenses for them.
Q104 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes,
but you support these people. For example, Mr. McConnell first
wanted to be high commissioner in Malawi and then changed his
mind. He is now the Prime Minister's special representative for
peacekeeping—I am not sure how successful he is being. He
is supported by your Department and that is an expensive undertaking.
You may not be paying his salary, but he is on the books, he has
an office and you have to service him, listen to what he says
and send him abroad or whatever. Are you not worried that that
will go down very badly with your permanent staff, all of whom
are having their careers blighted by cutbacks? At the same time,
you are supplying facilities for a whole lot of other people who
you clearly didn't want, but who have been imposed on you. It
is not clear to this Committee who they report to and what they
are doing. It is making our job difficult as well.
Sir Peter Ricketts: I wouldn't
go as far as to say that people's careers are being blighted.
I hope we can avoid that. I do not feel that there is confusion
about their reporting lines. Jack McConnell certainly reports
to the Prime Minister and to the Foreign Secretary. As you said,
we provide him with a degree of support, but that is one part
of one official's time. For that, we have the opportunity of having
Jack McConnell spending more time than a Minister would be able
to spend in Africa, for example, dealing with difficult African
peacekeeping issues. From where I sit, it does not feel as confused
or as difficult as you suggest.
Q105 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: And
you think you're speaking for all your staff in saying that? There's
no disquiet about these special representatives and others who
are working out of your Department, clearly doing jobs that were
previously done by your staff and your diplomatic service. Is
there no problem with staff morale, no criticism, and are you
entirely happy with these arrangements?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I have heard
no criticism and, indeed, now we have our chief scientific adviser,
he is bringing in a capacity we didn't have and that wasn't being
done before. It is a net addition for us, in terms of professional
capability.
Q106 Sandra Osborne: As well as
special representatives, as you know, the Committee has taken
a close interest in the appointment of people from outwith the
diplomatic service to senior diplomatic posts—we recently
interviewed Baroness Amos. The Constitutional Reform and Governance
Bill, currently going through Parliament, has an amendment that
would cap at three the number of political appointments to senior
diplomatic posts. If this was agreed by Parliament, would it be
welcomed within the diplomatic service?
Sir Peter Ricketts: As you know,
we have had the practice for many years of the Prime Minister
making a limited number of appointments in the diplomatic service.
That is in the diplomatic service Order in Council, which is the
power that successive Prime Ministers under different Governments
have used. Of course, it is never easy for staff in the profession
to see people coming from outside, but we have always worked well
with the political appointees we have had and we are working very
well with Baroness Amos now. I think I will leave it to Parliament
to decide what to put in the legislation. All I can say, from
where I sit, is that where political appointments are made under
this power, we do everything in our power to work effectively
with the appointees.
Q107 Sandra Osborne: So you don't
see the value in capping it at three?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I don't want
to venture into a territory that is Parliament's territory to
decide.
Q108 Mr. Horam: The former Foreign
Secretary, Lord Hurd, in a House of Lords debate on foreign policy
in February 2009, said that "the Foreign Office in London—which
is what I am mainly talking about—is ceasing to be a storehouse
of knowledge providing valued advice to Ministers and is increasingly
an office of management, management of a steadily shrinking overseas
service ... My main concern is that the Foreign Office in London
has been hollowed out. I believe that it should, once again, consist
of and produce a reserve of knowledge that can put advice from
overseas posts in a strategic context, hold its own in arguments
with the Prime Minister and with No. 10." It is not only
Lord Hurd who has been saying that. That is a flavour of the views
of many other people who have given evidence to the Committee.
How do you respond to that?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I have the
greatest respect for Lord Hurd, with whom I worked as an official
for many years, but in this case I do not agree with him. I see
every day the FCO at the heart of policy making on a whole range
of difficult, important, fast-moving and complex issues, and leading
Whitehall work on it. I do not really recognise the description
"hollowed out". It is true that there are fewer people
working in the FCO now than there probably were when Lord Hurd
was Foreign Secretary, but the advances in IT mean that our ambassadors
are absolutely central in the policy-making process. Whenever
the Foreign Secretary has an office meeting to talk about the
Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran, the ambassador will be
on a secure video teleconference, joining that conversation. So
the ambassador's capacity to be part of policy making is greater
than it was. IT means that when any policy is being thought about
or developed, the embassy or consulate involved will be part of
that policy making. I think we are working much more effectively,
using the very strong talents we still have for understanding
and knowing about abroad in our embassies. They are part of the
policy-making process in London. So I do not think the phrase
"hollowed out" reflects the reality. The reality is
that the FCO in London, working with our ambassadors, is still
a real storehouse of knowledge and experience of abroad.
Q109 Mr. Horam: Would you agree
that the involvement of the Prime Minister's office in No. 10
in foreign policy matters has increased over the years?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I think it
has been increasing for generations. I think back to the second
world war and the person who was most concerned with foreign policy
in those days was the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has had
a leading role in foreign policy for generations. In terms of
numbers, No. 10 is not expanding. It is a reality now that Heads
of Government are very heavily concerned in foreign affairs, yes,
but they depend very much on the FCO for support. They have tiny
numbers in No. 10 and the Prime Minister is advised by us on a
wide range of foreign policy.
Q110 Chairman: What about the
national security strategy? Has that made any difference to what
you do?
Sir Peter Ricketts: It is useful
in setting a broad context for a lot of the work that we do and
in drawing together the work of the Home Office, as well as the
Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence
and ourselves on a whole range of issues. It certainly gives a
context to the work I do, which is as the leading official on
public service agreement 30 on conflict work. So yes, it is helpful
as a broad context for our work.
Q111 Chairman: You have just re-established
a strategy unit. Is that just a re-badging of the policy planning
unit that you used to have?
Sir Peter Ricketts: Yes. It is
the policy planning unit, plus our research analysts. We have
put them together, so that instead of having two separate groups
we have them in one directorate, but there is no other change.
It is still the same reason why we set up the policy planning
staff again three or four years ago when I arrived: to give us—exactly
responding to Mr. Horam's point—enough intellectual capacity
at the centre of the organisation to be sure that we were covering
all the major issues.
Q112 Chairman: Have you assessed
its impact yet?
Sir Peter Ricketts: It hasn't
really been in existence long enough to assess its impact, but
we will do so.
Q113 Chairman: Finally, a few
very quick questions. The UK Border Agency, which most MPs have
a great number of dealings with—I won't go into that—is
now under the Home Office. Are you satisfied that UK policies
on issuing visas and visa operations give sufficient weight to
foreign policy implications? We occasionally get complaints from
foreign Governments, or foreign politicians, about the difficulties
that business men have in getting visas to come to this country.
In some contexts, that is seen as some diplomatic slight and can
cause complications. Do you think the Home Office and the Border
Agency really understand the foreign policy implications of delays
on visas?
Sir Peter Ricketts: I might ask
Mr. Bevan to respond, because he leads the work in the Foreign
Office on UKBA and migration.
James Bevan: Thank you. Yes, I
think we are. Clearly, we are in a situation where the Government
have been very clear, over the last period, that they want to
tackle illegal immigration very effectively, while at the same
time facilitating legitimate travel. UKBA recognise, with us,
that those are both parts of its job. So I think we are clear
on the strategy. On how it works, we have a very effective partnership.
I sit on the UKBA board. There is daily contact between more junior
officials on either side. Our staff are seconded to our respective
organisations. We have a migration directorate in the Foreign
Office that works on a daily basis with UKBA on the policy and
operational issues. From where I sit, it does work. That does
not mean that there are not sometimes different perspectives from
the Home Office side or the Foreign Office side, but where those
exist we have normally managed to resolve them through dialogue.
At a practical level, the corporation is getting increasingly
impressive. There was a good example last week. We managed to
return a series of foreign national prisoners to Jamaica, which
we had been waiting to do for a good time. That was the result
of the Home Office and UKBA helping to identify and collect those
prisoners, and the Foreign Office negotiating the prisoner transfer
agreement with Jamaica and then working on the ground to make
sure that it happened.
Q114 Chairman: So I can take it
that if people complain about student visa problems and delays
in getting to courses in this country, the Foreign Office is able
to effectively persuade UKBA and the Home Office to take those
concerns seriously?
James Bevan: Yes. That is a very
good example. We did have concerns earlier this year, following
the introduction of the new points-based system, that legitimate
student numbers had gone down and we raised those with UKBA. It
looked at some of the ways in which that system is being implemented,
made some adjustments, and the numbers of legitimate students
coming to the UK are now back up to the levels that they were
previously.
Q115 Chairman: We do have some
questions about public diplomacy, but given the time I think we
will send you those in writing. Just briefly, are you happy with
the planned restructuring and the revamp of your public diplomacy
and structures that are coming through?
Sir Peter Ricketts: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
We can respond in more detail in writing.[7]
I know that Chris Bryant has written to the Committee, but I think
the ministerial oversight is good and the fact that we are now
a campaigning organisation needs to be reflected in our structures
for dealing with that.
Chairman: Thank you. Sir Peter, may I
take this opportunity to wish all your staff a very merry Christmas?
The Committee will be working very closely with you for the rest
of this Parliament, but this is our final session with you on
the annual report. We certainly welcome the co-operation we get
whatever we are doing, whether it is in this country or abroad,
and the hard work that we know that people in the FCO put in liaising
with Parliament and assisting us in our work.
Sir Peter Ricketts: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I will certainly pass that on to our staff. In return,
may I reciprocate the warm thanks for the spirit in which the
Committee works with all our staff around the world and in London?
Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
7 Ev 95 Back
| 
