4Conclusion
37.We believe that it would be a false saving to impose cuts on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the 2015 Spending Review. Given the size of the FCO’s budget, any savings made would make a minimal contribution to reducing the deficit; and they would have a disproportionate impact on the ability of the FCO to do what it was established to do, as has been evidenced in the last five years. Progress in restoring its policy-making and diplomatic capability would be reversed; and the ability of the FCO central machinery to support its core diplomatic function would be put at risk just at a time of unusual international turbulence and when diplomatic skills are required more than ever.
38.In an increasingly unstable world, the Government relies on the FCO to have the necessary infrastructure in place so that it can make critical decisions at a moment’s notice. Over the last Parliament the country was found to be lacking in expertise, analytical capability and language skills to manage the fallout from the Arab Spring and the crisis in Ukraine. In 2010 it might have been thought that expertise on Benghazi, Donetsk, or Raqqa was surplus to requirement. These have become vital areas for our national security, evidencing the real dangers of an under-funded Foreign and Commonwealth Office in an increasingly unpredictable world.
39.In a letter to The Times on 6 October 2015, Sir Simon Fraser, the former Permanent Under-Secretary at the FCO, pointed to the savings which had been made over the last five years but warned that “elastic only stretches so far”. He described the Treasury’s requirement for a further cut of 25% or more as “neither coherent nor wise”. Others go further. Charles Grant, Director of the Centre for European Reform, told us that
Whether or not we are in the EU, we have to recognise that the Foreign Office is a Rolls-Royce machine. It is extremely professional—for example, the way it has handled nuclear diplomacy with Iran. We should value, respect and cherish the institutions that enhance our reputation around the world, such as our armed forces, the BBC and the Foreign Office. I am sad to see the damage done to the Foreign Office by cuts made by successive Governments—not just the current Government—in recent years . To cut it significantly further would in my view be madness.43
We agree. We recommend that the Treasury protect the FCO budget for the period covered by the 2015 Spending Review, with a view to increasing rather than cutting the funds available to support the diplomatic work on which the country’s security and prosperity depend.
43 Evidence given on 20 October 2015, on Costs and benefits of EU membership for the UK’s role in the world, HC 545, Session 2015-16
© Parliamentary copyright 2015
Prepared 22 October 2015