3 May 1989]
THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Sir PATRICK WRIGHT, KCMG, Mr D BLATHERWICK, OBE, Mr D Moss, CMG, Miss C PESTELL, CMG, Mr G GRIFFITHS AND Mr AR PAUL
[Mr Jopling Conid] previous year.
107. Therefore, the shortfall is reduced by 10 per cent?
(Sir Patrick Wright) Yes.
108. That would bring it to 20 per cent? (Sir Patrick Wright) The full-time language training is up by 24 per cent on the previous year.
109. Does that imply it is reduced by a quarter of 16 per cent, bringing it down to 12 per cent?
(Sir Patrick Wright) That is right, yes. Ninety per cent of places offered on non-language courses were filled as against 87 per cent in the previous year. That I am sure reflects both improvement in the shortfall and I think better performance by managers in releasing people for training.
110. I have a further question on secondments. In what we call paper 48, tables I and II attached to question 4, you talk of secondment into and out of the Diplomatic Service. Can you tell us how this is going? Are you intending to expand it? Have you come across any problems in these arrangements?
(Sir Patrick Wright) I have already talked about secondments and exchanges with the private sec- tor, I think, in which the answer is, most definitely, yes, we are trying to expand it. As to exchanges with other government departments, I think the tables to which you refer also give the figures for exchanges with other departments, most particu- larly the Department of Trade and Industry. I am not sure whether it is correct to say that is expand- ing, but we certainly attach a lot of importance to keeping up the rate of exchanges with other departments.
of
111. Can you estimate the number secondments into the private sector during 1989?
(Sir Patrick Wright) Five.
112. The same as last year?
(Sir Patrick Wright) Yes, I think that is right. (Mr Moss) Yes indeed. We are aiming for five inward and five outside secondments to and from the private sector.
Chairman: Let us turn to the question of dele- gation of budgets, which I think we raised with you last year.
Mr Wells
113. In the memorandum you state that subhead A1(3), locally controlled administrative costs, cannot be broken down since posts have full discretion on how they deploy their budget resources. What worries the Committee is how these budgets are controlled, who controls them, what is spent on them and how they are audited.
(Sir Patrick Wright) The local budgets in over- seas posts are the responsibility of the head of post who is formally appointed sub-accounting officer by myself as accounting officer; the responsibility is therefore theirs. The posts are inspected once every four years but that pattern may change. The
51
[Continued
post inspection includes an examination of how they are running their budgets. As the memor- andum makes clear, this is a changing scene, that is to say, we have quite significantly increased the extent of local budgeting. I think we have probably very nearly reached the limit. I doubt whether there is more that we can do.
(Mr Griffiths) In addition to the DS inspectors we have an internal audit unit, which visits overseas posts on a regular programme. There is also a cer- tain amount of oversight from the superintending departments in London. The accounts coming back to London are subject to a series of random spot checks on reasonable standards of administra- tion. We try to avoid second guessing too much. The aim of the scheme is to give the post the money and the responsibility to get on with the job.
(Sir Patrick Wright) May I say that I very much endorse that aim. If we are going to make the local budget system work of course there must be proper accounting and we must make sure that the staff in posts are properly trained and equipped to run the accounts well. However, I am very anxious that we should not be seen by the service to be keeping hold of the apron strings and constantly tugging on them. I think managers in posts should be given the responsiblity to run these budgets themselves with occasional oversight but that we should del- egate that responsibility as far as possible.
114. Can they change the numbers they employ and the posts they localise within that budget without reference to London?
(Sir Patrick Wright) Some can. We have given special delegated authority to the Ambassador in Washington to change the mix of locally engaged staff in the United States within his overall budget and within his overall manpower allocation.
115. That particular ambassador should be able to do that satisfactorily, I should think. May I ask whether you can give an indication of the break- down either for particular posts or overall for the last financial year at least of subhead A1(3)?
(Sir Patrick Wright) Yes, I can. Based on the estimates which we received from posts we think that the total funds to be expended will break down approximately as follows: local staff, £59 million, which is 57 per cent of all local budgets; accommo- dation, £29, which is 27 per cent of all local budgets; communications, 6 per cent; travel and transport, 5 per cent, and others, 5 per cent. That is a rough breakdown based on the estimates that we have received.
Mr Wells: That is very satisfactory, I think, thank you very much.
Chairman: May we turn now to the question of priorities, the changes in the distribution of diplo- matic wing resources.
Mr Temple-Morris
116. Sir Patrick, the Public Expenditure White Paper Command 602 deals with this. There are some interesting charts on page five, if I may refer
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.