4 Sharing space with others
15. The Department's objectives commit it to
providing a flexible global network serving the whole of British
Government, but other UK government organisations operating overseas
are not making full use of the empty space on the Department's
estate, often preferring instead to lease their own properties.[38]
The NAO found 175 teams from other government organisations operating
in the same location as the Department, but not using their office
space. In 63 of these locations, the Department reported having
spare space.[39] The
UK Border Agency, which is usually based in the Department's offices,
is slimming down its operation and bringing its work into regional
hubs. This has left many properties with empty visa offices, waiting
rooms and interview booths, and it can be difficult, costly and
time consuming for the Department to reconfigure these areas into
usable space.[40] The
Department invests a lot of money in the security of its buildings,
so moving into smaller premises can be very expensive.[41]
16. The Department currently shares office space
with a number of British government and international organisations
and agreed there may be further scope to do so in the future.
The Department for International Development had moved back in
to FCO compounds in India and in Africa.[42]
The FCO had also co-located with UKRep in Brussels, and was looking
at the scope to share offices in Vienna and Geneva.[43]
The Department confirmed that it has no current plans to co-locate
its representatives overseas with those of the proposed new European
External Action Service. It would be willing to consider locating
one or two British diplomats with an EU delegation in countries
where it does not currently operate, as a cost effective way to
establish a diplomatic presence. It may also be able to reduce
costs by letting out space to other nations in its own facilities,
as it had done already in Baghdad and Dar-es-Salaam.[44]
17. Many organisations requiring public access
choose not to use the Department's estate overseas because they
consider a secure facility to be incompatible with their business
needs. The inaccessibility of the embassy may be unsuitable for
other potential users, such as trade associations, but these organisations
do make use of official residences for business promotions.[45]
The British Council prefers to locate separately to the Department,
where security allows, as it requires maximum public access and
minimum security for its students taking English classes or using
the library facilities. In addition, in some countries the Council's
status as a charitable body precludes it from operating from the
Department's premises.[46]
The Department agreed that in almost all cases, co-location was
better than having a UK embassy and government offices in different
locations in the same city, and that more could be done to overcome
some of the barriers to other organisations using its estate.[47]
Financial pressures may see a greater move towards co-location
amongst government organisations over the next few years.[48]
18. The Department is required to charge other
users of its estate full economic cost in accordance with Treasury
rules. This charging regime acts as a disincentive to other users
of the estate, as it is often cheaper for them to lease their
own premises elsewhere.[49]
The charge is set according to the Treasury fees and charges guide,
and is made up of direct costs such as water bills, local management
costs, and a central overhead, which reflects the amount of time
Department staff in London spend on administration.[50]
The full economic cost of sharing space with the Department will
always be more expensive than a commercial rate as it is expensive
to provide a secure building.[51]
The Department agreed that the idea of being able to charge a
lower cost to fill its unused space would be attractive, and it
would be better value for money for the taxpayer to have all government
departments working together in the same place abroad as much
as possible.[52] However,
there is a risk that the Department could lose out financially
were it to charge a lower cost to other users, as it would still
have to meet the fixed costs of the its buildings. It would prefer
instead to focus on reducing the overall cost of its operations
overseas. Greater use of embassies by other departments would
help it achieve this goal.[53]
19. The Department is a member of the Treasury's
Shared Services Group which deals with property management and
is currently looking at the tensions between the full economic
cost and the cost to the taxpayer.[54]
The Treasury hoped that this group would place greater emphasis
on other government organisations to use the Department's estate
where appropriate, instead of entering into commercial deals which
may be more costly to the taxpayer in the longer term.[55]
38 Qq 9 and 31; C&AG's Report, para 5.1 Back
39
Q 31; C&AG's Report, para 5.3 Back
40
Q 9 Back
41
Qq 9 and 11 Back
42
Q 11 Back
43
Q 28 Back
44
Qq 46, 65 and 76-81 Back
45
Q 55-59 Back
46
Q 31 Back
47
Qq 30 and 31 Back
48
Q 32 Back
49
Qq 9 and 60 Back
50
Qq 87-90 Back
51
Q 60 Back
52
Qq 9 and 64 Back
53
Q 64 Back
54
Qq 9 and 61-64 Back
55
Q 10 Back
|
