Conclusions and recommendations
The FCO's estate
1. We welcome the
decision by the Treasury to permit greater flexibility for the
FCO in reinvestment of proceeds from asset sales, as advocated
by the Committee in 2012. (Paragraph 10)
Residential accommodation policy
2. We endorse the
principle that allocation of accommodation overseas should be
guided by individual operational requirements and family considerations
rather than grade or status. (Paragraph 13)
One HMG Overseas project
3. While we welcome
the One HMG Overseas project as a good way of strengthening the
UK's identity locally and synthesising the effort of the various
arms of Government overseas, the FCO should not underestimate
the scale of possible resistance to the harmonisation of terms
and conditions for staff from different departments and agencies.
(Paragraph 17)
The overall staff profile
4. We conclude that
in future the Department will need to attach greater importance
to living within its means and will need to recognise that there
are limits to what it can take on. We recommend that the FCO maintain
a clearer definition of its priorities. (Paragraph 25)
Provision of information on numbers of staff at
individual posts
5. We welcome provision
by the FCO in this year's Annual Report and Accounts of unrounded
figures for UK-based staff in each post, and we welcome the steps
taken by the FCO to enable it to supply unrounded figures for
total staff employed at each post in future. We recommend that
the Annual Report should include these figures as a matter of
course each year. (Paragraph 29)
6. We reiterate our
recommendation that the FCO provide us on request, and in confidence
if necessary, with a breakdown of staff by function in any named
country in the current year and the previous ten years. We acknowledge
that there may well be occasions when the FCO cannot provide comprehensive
data for locally engaged staff, but we urge it to be as forthcoming
as possible in this respect when a request is made by the Committee.
(Paragraph 29)
Locally engaged staff
7. We welcome signs
that the FCO appears to regard 70% as a ceiling for the proportion
of locally engaged staff, even if not a formal one. We request
that the Department supply us with a copy of the current Duty
of Care guidance as it relates to locally engaged staff. (Paragraph
32)
Locally engaged staff and policy work
8. We believe that
it would be shortsighted to allow the financial advantage derived
from employing locally engaged staff rather than UK-based staff
in diplomatic or policy work to restrict the opportunities for
UK-based staff in policy grades to work overseas. The consequence
would be to lessen their first-hand experience of living and working
within different cultures and political and social environments
and to diminish the knowledge that was acquired and carried forward
to senior levels of the organisation over the years. We recommend
that the Department state that it recognises this danger and that
it offer a guarantee that the number of overseas positions for
UK-based staff at policy grades will not decrease as a result
of greater use of locally engaged staff. (Paragraph 35)
9. We recommend that
the FCO clarify what measures or guidelines are currently in place
to address concerns about locally engaged staff carrying out policy
and advocacy work on behalf of the FCO, and about potential conflicts
of interest. (Paragraph 36)
Languages : Recognition of skill levels
10. We believe that
the FCO could and should have been bolder in its recognition of
language skills in the new elements of the competency framework.
We believe that evidence of an ability to strengthen contacts
and win respect through use of the local language should be the
mark of effectiveness, rather than simply a willingness to learn
the language. We recommend that the FCO amend the relevant competency
framework accordingly, before its introduction in 2014. (Paragraph
42)
11. While we commend
the FCO for its willingness to undertake a major exercise to gather
and check data on the level of language proficiency of staff in
'speaker slots', we are concerned that the data initially supplied
to us was inaccurate. (Paragraph 43)
12. We conclude
that the Committee's persistence in pressing for detailed information
on language proficiency has been justified, and we welcome the
FCO's recognition that action needs to be taken to raise proficiency
levels. We commend the Permanent Under-Secretary for his evident
determination to address the problem. (Paragraph 45)
Language allowances
13. We believe that
language allowances, carefully set, can make a difference in persuading
staff to develop and retain language expertise. If anything, the
FCO should increase the allowances, in the interests of protecting
its assets. (Paragraph 48)
The Language Centre
14. We are yet to
be satisfied that standards of teaching at the FCO Language Centre
can match those at other specialist institutions given that there
appears to be a major disparity in pay rates. We will be on the
alert for any sign that the quality of language teaching has been
compromised by an excessive focus on cost by the FCO. (Paragraph
52)
Discretionary expenditure posts
15. We plan to request
information on FCO posts' discretionary spending, including on
whether and how the strategic impact of such spending is measured
and evaluated, and we recommend that posts consider how they could
do more to publicise their programme spending—whether managed
centrally or locally—in order to provide greater transparency.
(Paragraph 56)
Our view on the British Council and its future
form
16. We conclude that
the cross-subsidy model for the British Council is better than
any other in allowing for a strong British influence and presence
overseas and a deeper understanding in other nations of Britain,
its culture and values, at an acceptable cost to the taxpayer
. A reliance on commercial funding would make the British Council's
presence unsustainable in many areas where it has the greatest
"soft power" value, and a reliance on public funding
would shrink the organisation and reduce its influence with foreign
governments (for instance in education services) overseas. The
British Council has achieved a balance which works, and we believe
that the current mixed finance model should be retained. (Paragraph
67)
Location of British Council offices
17. We accept that
ease of access for customers should be a primary consideration
in decisions by the British Council on where to locate its offices
overseas. (Paragraph 69)
Perceptions of the British Council
18. We note the fall
in the percentage of survey respondents who said that they would
recommend the British Council to others, but we do not believe
that conclusions should be drawn unless there is evidence of a
trend over a number of years. (Paragraph 74)
The BBC World Service: Future funding and output
19. We strongly welcome
the decision to increase the funding available to the BBC World
Service in 2014-15. (Paragraph 76)
20. We urge the BBC
to announce funding levels for the BBC World Service for the remainder
of the current BBC Charter period and at least to maintain in
real terms the 2014-15 funding levels. (Paragraph 78)
Future parliamentary oversight of the World Service
21. We intend to continue
to monitor the BBC World Service's output and the extent to which
it reflects the FCO's strategic priorities. We strongly oppose
the proposals currently under consideration by the BBC Trust for
a wider commercialisation of the World Service as indicated in
the letter sent by the Director, Global News at the BBC, Mr Peter
Horrocks, to Lord Alton of Liverpool on 1 November 2013. We expect
to take evidence on these matters in future, both from FCO Ministers
and from the BBC; and we encourage our successors to do the same.
(Paragraph 80)
Language services
22. We recommend that
the FCO use its influence to encourage the Burmese authorities
to look favourably on provision of a BBC Burmese television service.
(Paragraph 83)
Governance of the BBC World Service
23. We are not convinced
that the protection of the BBC World Service's interests within
the BBC's governance structure is as strong as is being claimed,
and the picture appears to us to be one of steady erosion of World
Service influence within the BBC. The World Service will be heavily
reliant in future upon advocacy by a single Executive Board member,
who has many other competing responsibilities. The result may
be that the World Service is more regularly denied the resources
it needs to maintain or develop services. We recommend once again
that the World Service should be represented on the BBC Executive
Board, and we believe that the Director of BBC Global News should
be a member of the Management Board. (Paragraph 89)
| 
